Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Edinburgh Chartered Accountants Annuity, Etc., Fund (Consolidation and Amendment) Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EARSDON JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL,
to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Earsdon Joint Hospital District," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

INDIA MUSEUM, SOUTH KENSINGTON.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that parties of soldiers under orders for Egypt have recently been conducted round the galleries of the department of Egyptology at the British Museum; and whether he would be prepared to introduce a system by which candidates selected for the Indian Civil Service and other services in India and military cadets appointed to the Army in India should be required to visit the India Museum, South Kensington, in order to gain some acquaintance with the economic and cultural history of India before proceeding to that country?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): Arrangements have already been made to give candidates selected for the Indian Civil Service the benefit of lectures on Indian life and culture by lecturers connected with

the India Museum. The question whether it is practicable to give similar facilities to others selected here for civil or military service in India is under consideration by my Noble Friend.

DETENUS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government will consider, as an act of further clemency and for the purpose of celebrating the forthcoming Coronation of His Majesty, recommending to the Viceroy to grant an amnesty to political prisoners who were convicted for offences of a non-violent character, and/or all the civil disobedience prisoners who still remain in prison?

Mr. BUTLER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr.Thurtle) on 9th November, to which I have nothing to add

Mr. DAY: Are the sentences passed on civil disobedience prisoners in India reviewed from time to time?

Mr. BUTLER: There are no longer any civil disobedience prisoners still in goal in India.

Mr. JAGGER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that one Miss Renuka Sen, a master of arts of Calcutta, was recently arrested for breaking a restraint order served on her, and that she had intimated to the Government of Bengal that it was impossible for her to follow an occupation and earn a living within the area within which the order of the local government had restricted her movements; and what steps are taken by the local government of Bengal to ensure that the persons whom it restrains by order to limit their movements to specified areas have an opportunity of earning their living or are provided adequate maintenance?

Mr. BUTLER: I have no information concerning Miss Renuka Sen, but I will make inquiries. With regard to the second part of the question, I would inform the hon. Member that all the circumstances of detenus restricted to certain areas are taken into consideration by the local government in dealing with the question of the grant of an allowance.

Mr. JAGGER: Are any steps being taken to see that this practice is put an end to?

Mr. BUTLER: Apart from taking steps it is a certainty that the Government have in specific instances released under special conditions certain of these persons.

Mr. JAGGER: But I am asking about ceasing to arrest persons in such circumstances.

Mr. BUTLER: If they cease their connection with terrorism they will not be arrested.

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER (MILITARY OPERATIONS).

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has a statement to make concerning recent military incidents in the North-West Frontier Province?

Sir PATRICK HANNON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can make a further statement on the attack by tribesmen on British troops on the North-West Frontier; whether any further casualties have been reported since the issue of the Government communication to the Press on Thursday; and whether the situation is now satisfactory?

Mr. BUTLER: In 1935 the Tori Khel tribesmen inhabitating the lower Khaisora Valley in North Waziristan entered into an agreement to permit full access to their country and to give no harbourage to outlaws or persons hostile to the British Government. A fanatic known as the Faqir of Ipi (in the neighbouring Tochi valley) has been causing unrest this year in connection with the alleged conversion of a minor Hindu girl to Islam. As a result of Government action he took refuge in the lower Khaisora, whence he continued anti-Government propaganda. Representatives of the Tori Khel professed themselves unable to control the Faqir in the absence of some demonstration on the part of the Government. It was, therefore, decided to march troops through the area in order to stiffen the pro-Government party and counter the influence of the Faqir.
As regards the actual operations I have nothing to add to the Government of

India's communique issued to the Press here and in India yesterday, which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. This gives the total casualties as 19 killed and 112 wounded during the three days' operations up to the time when the combined column reached Mir Ali. The tribesmen put up serious opposition from the outset of the operations on the 25th, and in view of the nature of the country through which the columns advanced, casualties were inevitable. I am sure that the House would wish to express its sympathy with the relations of those who lost their lives. The units concerned behaved with great gallantry throughout. The further measures necessary to deal with the situation are under the Government of India's consideration.

Sir P. HANNON: If I put down another question to my hon. Friend this day week, perhaps he will be prepared to make a further statement?

Mr. BUTLER: Certainly.

Mr. SORENSEN: Do I understand from the reply that the alleged tribesmen who are causing this trouble do not come from the British part of the province but from the region immediately adjoining

Mr. BUTLER: Yes, Sir.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is there any truth in the statement in the Press that British troops were ambushed?

Mr. BUTLER: I am very glad that the hon. Member has given me the opportunity to deny the story that British troops were ambushed. The nature of the country through which the column advanced made casualties inevitable, but, in fact, all attempts at ambush were thwarted.
Following is the communique:
The following is an account of the fighting which took place in the Khaisora Valley from 25th to 27th November, 1936, which amplifies the information given in previous communiques. On the morning of 25th November two columns moved towards the Khaisora Valley with the object of joining hands at Biche Kashkai. One column advanced from Mir Ali in the north, the other from Damdil in the west. As already stated, the movement was


in the nature of a demonstration only. Although some opposition from the recalcitrant Wazir followers of the Faqir of Ipi was considered possible, it was not anticipated that this would be of a serious nature. The Damdil column first met with opposition after it had advanced about three miles, and from there as far as Biche Kashkai opposition was continuous. The route followed a valley with scrub-covered sides, which contained many caves. Here the enemy showed great courage and determination, lying concealed until the leading troops were at short range and then slipping away to further cover. In such country, in spite of close search of the ground and close support of troops with gun and machine-gun fire, the courage of small pa-ties of the enemy or even individuals all along the route made the task of the troops difficult and casualties inevitable. Our troops, however, continued their advance, clearing their way with gallantry and determination. The rearguard of the column was fired on when passing a point in the valley only two miles from Damdil, and was closely followed for the remainder of the march. At times considerable bodies of the enemy formed on the southern flank and closely followed the rearguard, searching for opportunities to attack, when they came on with gallantry.
It was in one of these attacks on a picuet of the 6th (Royal) Battalion 13th Frontier Force Rifles that Major Seecombe lost his life. He launched a counter-attack and was, unfortunately, killed while gallantly leading his men. In the evening the Damdil column went into camp at Biche Kashkai. The column from Mir Ali met opposition about seven miles south of that place. This took the form of sniping at comparatively close ranges and was continuous. In consequence of this and of the difficult and broken nature of the country on the route the progress of the column was slow. It was as a result of this intensive sniping that Major Tindall, 3/7th Rajputs, and two other officers were wounded, Major Tindall subsequently dying of wounds. In the evening the column had not reached the objective and the column Commander decided to halt for the night some two miles north of Biche Kashkai. The camp was sniped during the night. On the morning of 26th November two battalions and a

battery from the Damdil column moved out from Biche Kashkai and joined forces with the Mir Ali column. Little opposition was met with and the whole force concentrated at Biche Kashkai. On 27th November the force moved northwards to Mir Ali. At first little opposition was met with, but later this increased, culminating in a final enemy effort as the rearguard of the force reached the Tochi Valley. Throughout the day enemy detachments and snipers were effectively engaged by machine-gun and artillery fire. The co-operation of the Royal Air Force was most successful. On more than one occasion parties of the enemy, having been forced into the open by artillery fire, aircraft dived and bombed parties repeatedly.
The spirit of our troops and their bearing throughout the operations were beyond praise. They were specially successful in dealing with all attempts the enemy made according to their custom to lay ambushes, which were completely thwarted on every occasion. Our losses on this day were due to long range sniping. All the wounded were brought into Mir Ali on the afternoon of 27th November, and evacuated to Bannu in motor ambulances. Owing to the absence of any road fit for wheeled vehicles on the route of the column, wounded were evacuated to roadhead at Mir Ali, either in camel kajawahs for lying cases or on riding ponies for sitting cases. All stood the journey well. At Mir Ali warm meals and hot drinks were ready and, after the adjustment of dressings, the wounded were cheerful and restored. The general condition of all casualties evacuated to Bannu on the evening of the 27th was very good. A few serious cases are in hospital at Mir Ali until their condition justifies their further evacuation. Personnel from the following headquarters and units were engaged in the operations in the Khaisora Valley between 25th and 27th November, 1936: Headquarters, Waziristan District; Razmak Brigade; Bannu Brigade; Indian Cavalry; 5th Probyns Horse; Royal Artillery; Headquarters, 22nd Mountain Brigade; Royal Artillery, No. 3 Light Battery; Royal Artillery, No. 4 Mountain Battery; No. 7 Mountain Battery; Sappers and Miners; No. 15, Field Company, Madras Sappers and Miners; Royal Corps of Signals; Waziristan District Signals; British Infantry, 1st Battalion the


Northamptonshire Regiment; Indian Infantry, 3rd Battalion (D.C.O.); 7th Rajput Regiment; 5th Battalion, 12th Frontier Force Regiment (Q.V.O. Corps of Guides); 6th Royal Battalion, 13th Frontier Force Rifles; 1st Battalion (P.W.O.), 17th Dogra Regiment; 1st Battalion, 9th Gurkha Rifles; Royal Indian Army Service Corps; Razmak Brigade Supply Issue Sections Nos. 1, 10, 15, 24, 25, 35; Animal Transport Companies; Medical Units, Nos. 7 and 8 Field Ambulances; Veterinary Units, Razmak Brigade Mobile Veterinary Section; Royal Air Force No. 5 (Army Co-operation) Squadron; Royal Air Force No. 27 (Bomber) Squadron.
The total casualties in the operations in the Khaisora Valley during the period 25th to 27th November reported to date are 19 killed, 112 wounded. The following information is available regarding casualties who are included in the above totals:
Indian officers wounded: Subadar Major Jemadar Khan, 3/7th Rajputs; Jemadar Charnel Singh, 5/12th Frontier Force Rifles.
British other ranks wounded: 5876036, Sergeant Jackson; 1883205, Sergeant Coles; 5882743, Lance-Corporal Stevens; 5883696, Private Needham; 5881966, Private Wooley; 5882737, Private Stone; 5882716, Private Moore; 5882712, Private Ames; 5881959, Private White; 3717607, Private Sharman; 5882009, Private Roberts; all of 1st Battalion the Northamptonshire Regiment. 3522734, Signaller Herman, Royal Signals, and Signaller Coulson, Royal Signals.

Ma. SUBAS Bose.

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will have inquiries made into the case of Krishna Das, whose letter from gaol to Mahatma Gandhi many years ago was intercepted by the Government and formed the basis of the action taken against Bose and his continued imprisonment; is he aware that Krishna Das had no direct knowledge of any connection between Mr. Bose and the Yugantar party of revolutionaries; and that in the gaol where Krishna Das was there was a number of police emissaries who were sent there to create confusion in the ranks of civil disobedience prisoners?

Mr. JAGGER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that it was on the basis of a letter written by Krishna Das, and intercepted by the Government some years ago, that the Government of India based the action they have taken in interning Mr. Subas Bose without trial for an indefinite period, he will now cause inquiry to be made into the authenticity of the letter in question and the information in it?

Mr. BUTLER: The action taken in the case of Mr. Bose does not rest merely on the letter referred to, but on Government's knowledge of his activities over a long period of years. The question of Mr. Krishna Das' letter was fully dealt with by Government spokesmen in the Assembly last March, and I would refer the hon. Members to the report of this Debate.

Mr. SORENSEN: Is it not a fact that this letter was a very important element in the decision to intern Mr. Bose?

Mr. BUTLER: It was one of the elements taken into consideration, but by no means the only one.

Mr. JAGGER: Could we not have a copy of the letter circulated for the information of the House, in order that we may see what was said about Mr. Bose?

Mr. BUTLER: The letter was circulated in the Indian Press, and I will certainly take steps to see that it is brought to the attention of hon. Members here.

Mr. SORENSEN: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is going to make further inquiries regarding the letter from Mr. Krishna Das?

Mr. BUTLER: My information is that the matter was fully explained to the Indian Assembly, and I think it would be worth while for the hon. Member to read the Assembly debates.

SOCIALISTS.

Mr. JAGGER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many Socialists and persons engaged in the organisation of peasants or labour unions are now undergoing imprisonment or under restraint orders or orders of externment from or internment in specified areas?

Mr. BUTLER: I am not in possession of this information. No persons are imprisoned or have their movements restrained because they are engaged in genuine trade union organisation work.

Mr. JAGGER: Could the hon. Member not let us have the number of Socialists in gaol?

Miss WILKINSON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will publish the information on which his statements concerning Mr. Masani, the secretary of the Socialist party in India, are founded?

Mr. BUTLER: I have nothing to add to the full statement I made on 10th November.

Miss WILKINSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that full statement told us precisely nothing, and that is why this question has been put down? Can we have something more definite?

Mr. BUTLER: I based my statement on information received by me from the Governors of the two Provinces and the Government of India, and I gave certain other facts, and I think it would be well if the hon. Lady would read my statement again.

Miss WILKINSON: I have read it.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mrs. Kamala Chattopadhayya, a member of the Socialist Party Executive of India, has been refused a passport to visit this country and to travel in Europe; and why such action has been taken by the Indian administration?

Mr. BUTLER: The matter would appear to be one for the authorities in India, and I have no information beyond what I have seen in the Press.

Mr. JONES: May we take it that persons who regard themselves as Socialists are on that account precluded from coming to England or to Europe?

Mr. BUTLER: Not on account of their Socialist activities as distinct from Communist or revolutionary activities.

Mr. JONES: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence to show that this lady was open to this charge?

Mr. BUTLER: I imagine that the authorities in India were satisfied.

UNITED PROVINCES (COURT OF WARDS CIRCULAR).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any communication has yet been made to the Government of the United Provinces by the Secretary of State for India to instruct the withdrawal of the circular issued by the Court of Wards?

Mr. BUTLER: No, Sir.

ABYSSINIA (SIKH TROOPS).

5. Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Sikh troops taken to Addis Ababa to guard the British Legation during the period of the Italian invasion of Ethiopia were recently inspected by the official representative of Italy in Addis Ababa; and whether it is the practice to permit the inspection of His Majesty's troops by the representatives of States or conquests which are not recognised by His Majesty's Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): When the decision of His Majesty's Government to remove these troops was communicated to Marshal Graziani, the latter offered to provide transport for them to the station at Addis Ababa, to furnish a guard of honour there, and to be present himself at the departure of the contingent. This offer on the part of the authority in military occupation of Addis Ababa was accepted by His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires with the full approval of His Majesty's Government.

Miss WILKINSON: In view of the fact that Italy has behaved so badly to the League in this matter, does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that we should accept courtesies, in the circumstances?

Mr. EDEN: Nothing at all connected with recognition or any question of that kind arose. This was an act of military courtesy, and I think it should be accepted as such.

Mr. SORENSEN: May not Italy accept this as a stage towards recognition of her conquest in Abyssinia?

Mr. EDEN: I am quite certain that the act was merely an act of courtesy, so intended and so accepted.

Mr. SORENSEN: Arising out of this, could the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Italian Government that they should be even more courteous to the Abyssinians?

IRAQ.

The following question, stood upon, the Order Paper in the name of Colonel WEDGWOOD:

14. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that this country spends £1,500,000 a year on a force to prevent Iraq being returned to the Turks and in view of the feelings towards Great Britain as illustrated by their interference in Palestine and the official reception given to the Iraqi organiser of the murders in Palestine, he will notify the Government of Iraq that our Air Force will be withdrawn from that country in the near future?

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Before this question is put, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling on this point? This question makes a direct charge of guilt, or responsibility for murder, against an individual, and, in view of the fact that he has not yet been tried by any court, is it in order for an hon. Member of this House, by means of a statement in a question, to prejudge the possible verdict of the Palestine Judiciary?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are aware at the same time that a price has been put on this individual's head by the Palestine Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: When I saw this question it did not seem to me that it was out of order. I take it that the right hon. and gallant Member makes himself responsible for the statements in his question.

Mr. EDEN: I cannot accept the premises on which this question is based, and I do not propose to make any notification of the nature suggested to the Iraqi Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman with which par-

ticular item in the question he does not associate himself? Is he not aware that this organiser was received and feted in Bagdad when he arrived from Palestine?

Mr. EDEN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me a question which contained the statement that we spent £1,500,000 a year in Iraq, and I do not accept the implications in that question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that we spend £1,500,000 a year on our Air Force in Iraq in order to protect that country from Turkey?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then may I ask what we do spend?

Mr. EDEN: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question. I merely said that I did not accept his statement.

SPAIN.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether our representatives at Hendaye, or at Madrid, or at Rome, have made any suggestions as to how we could succour some of the victims of the bombing of Madrid either by ourselves or in conjunction with other Powers?

Mr. EDEN: As I have already explained to the House, His Majesty's Government have taken all possible steps to urge the insurgents to confine the bombing of Madrid to purely military objectives, and to provide a safety zone for the civilian population. In this connection, I have already stated that the Burgos authorities have agreed to the extension of the security zone in Madrid. His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Madrid is in close touch with the Madrid representative of the International Red Cross, and he is doing everything possible to assist both that organisation and the Scottish Ambulance Unit.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the appeal made by six Members of this House, and can he say what the Red Cross organisation is doing at the present time to help the people of Spain?

Mr. EDEN: ? I have seen the appeal. The International Red Cross have been


very active, and it is due to their representative, Dr. Junod, that considerable transfers of refugees have been made possible to both sides, by means of His Majesty's ships.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are there any elements of the Red Cross organisation operating with either side in this civil war, or are they standing aloof?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir, they are not standing aloof; they have desired, as we all have, to assist all parties in this matter.

Mr. R. ACLAND: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any evidence has been received and unanimously accepted by the Non-Intervention Committee as establishing that any and, if so, what consignments of arms have reached either party in Spain contrary to the terms of the Non-Intervention Agreement?

Mr. EDEN: Such conclusions as have been reached by the committee regarding complaints, the examination of which have been completed, have been published from time to time in the communiqués issued to the Press.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from the Norwegian Government any note or information concerning the illegal boarding and detention of a Norwegian ship off the Galician coast; and whether adequate protection for British ships is being provided off all the coasts of Spain?

Mr. EDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the assurance which I give on this subject last Monday.

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to take any special steps to prevent British vessels from conveying arms to the rebel forces in Spain through Portuguese ports?

Mr. THURTLE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the existing rebellion in Spain, he will take steps to prohibit the exportation in carrying of arms from this; country to ports in Portugal?

Mr. EDEN: I will, with permission, answer question No. 21 together with No. 53, to which I have been asked to reply. The answer is No, Sir.

Miss RATHBONE: In the absence of some special measure, does the right hon. Gentleman not apprehend that the effect of the proposed Bill will be to operate, like the Non-Intervention Pact itself, almost exclusively to the detriment of the legitimate Government, in view of the known sympathies of the Portuguese Government?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir, I do not. I really cannot accept the suggestion that Portugal is especially guilty in this matter.

Mr. DALTON: Is it not notorious that Portugal has become simply a conduit pipe through which munitions of war have poured in?

Mr. EDEN: No, I do not think so; that is not my information, and I should have thought, purely for military reasons, that it was extremely unlikely.

Miss RATHBONE: I spoke of the "known sympathies of the Portuguese Government." Is it not a fact that a rebel embassy is held openly in the principal hotel in Lisbon, monopolising telephonic communication?

Mr. EDEN: There are features of the conflict of which His Majesty's Government do not approve, but we have to decide what our policy is in accordance with what we think to be the best interests of our country.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the statement to be well-founded that the sympathy of the Portuguese Government is strongly with the Spanish rebels?

Mr. EDEN: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct His Majesty's Consular agents in the Balearic Islands to make an immediate report concerning the presence of Italian troops in those Islands; and whether he will thereafter inform the House of the nature of the report which he receives

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Consul at Palma reports in the normal course of


his duties on the situation in the Balearic Islands. Certain information in these reports indicative of a breach of the Non-Intervention Agreement has been forwarded to the International Committee.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence of British subjects is available as to the presence in large numbers of Italian officers in the Balearic Islands, and of the virtual domination of those Islands by those Forces; and does he not think that it is desirable to make the public believe that the Non-Intervention Committee is not merely a means of hiding the real facts of the situation?

Mr. EDEN: I am fully aware that there are Italian volunteers in Majorca, just as there are other foreign volunteers in other parts of Spain. I deprecate it, but we cannot deal with these matters alone.

Sir P. HANNON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the establishment of a safety zone for British shipping at the port of Barcelona?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. The Burgos authorities have informed me that the area lying between the land and the open sea south of the parallel 41 degrees, 20 minutes, 3 seconds, may be regarded as a safety zone for shipping at Barcelona. This information has been passed on to the shipping firms.

Sir P. HANNON: Are we to understand from the reply that British shipping is tolerably safe in the region of Barcelona?

Miss WILKINSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Committee of Non-Intervention is now in possession of any definite proof of any intervention by any Great Power, other than Portugal, in the affairs of Spain?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply which I gave on Wednesday last to similar questions asked by the hon. Lady the Member for the combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), to which I have nothing to add.

Miss WILKINSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements are in hand for further evacuations from Spain of persons desiring to leave?

Mr. EDEN: So far as British subjects are concerned, His Majesty's ships will continue to evacuate them when and where possible, though those who elect to remain in Spain have been repeatedly warned that they do so at their own risk and that facilities for their evacuation could not be assured for an indefinite period. So far as foreign nationals, other than Spaniards, are concerned, His Majesty's Government recently gave notice that they were no longer able to accept responsibility for their evacuation. In accordance, however, with their humanitarian aims, His Majesty's Government are prepared to continue to evacuate such persons as appear to them to be deserving of their assistance, provided that His Majesty's ships are available for this purpose. Moreover, His Majesty's diplomatic and consular officers in Spain are keeping in touch with the Spanish authorities on both sides and with the representatives of the International Red Cross, with a view to facilitating the evacuation of further members of the civilian Spanish population.

Miss WILKINSON: In view of the present situation, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the time has arrived to evacuate all the Spaniards and leave the other countries to fight it out?

GERMANY AND JAPAN (AGREEMENT).

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information concerning an agreement between the Governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan to co-ordinate their action for the suppression of Communism; and whether he can make a statement regarding the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards such an agreement?

Mr. KENNEDY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to an agreement between the Governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan regarding action is to be
taken for the suppression of Communism; and what action is to be


be taken regarding the agreement in view of its possible effect on international relations?

Mr. EDEN: The text of the Agreement signed at Berlin on 25th November by the representatives of the German and Japanese Governments was communicated shortly before publication to His Majesty's Ambassadors at Berlin and Tokyo by the Foreign Ministers of Germany and Japan. In making this communication, the German Foreign Minister assured the Ambassador that there was no kind of military or other alliance between Germany and Japan, and the Japanese Foreign Minister stated that there was no secret treaty at all. I have no information that Italy has yet entered into a similar agreement with Japan. As regards the attitude of His Majesty's Government, the House is aware that they have explicitly deprecated any tendency to divide the world into conflicting camps, especially on ideological grounds. Their policy continues to be to promote so far as lies in their power, friendly relations between all nations.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that Italy has an agreement with Germany on this subject, and is there not now a triple alliance between the three countries?

TREATIES.

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an3, representative of the Court of St. James's in any foreign country has been or will be empowered to sign a treaty with any Power other than that to which he is accredited?

Mr. EDEN: I am unaware of any case of this nature in recent times. As regards the future, the hon. Lady will realise that, though this is not our normal practice, I could give no undertaking in hypothetical circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BACON (IMPORTED FROZEN PORK).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Agriculture what weight of bacon has been made in this country from imported frozen pig carcases; and whether such bacon on being offered for

sale is required to be marked so as to indicate the origin of the pigs from which it is made?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. S, Morrison): 264,000 cwt. of bacon was produced from imported frozen pork in 1935 by curers in Great Britain registered under the Bacon Marketing Scheme. As regards the second part of the question, foodstuffs which have undergone a process of curing in the United Kingdom are expressly excluded from the operation of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend doing what he can to prevent this undesirable development of bacon manufacture in this country?

Mr. MORRISON: I have only recently had my attention drawn to the matter, and should like to give it further consideration before replying. I would point out, however, for the information of the House, that the chief sources of supply of these frozen carcases are Australia and New Zealand.

SUGAR BEET.

Mr. De CHAIR: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that in the 1937 sugar-beet contract Norfolk growers are to receive less than growers elsewhere; and whether, since this is an unfair discrimination against Norfolk growers, for whom the subsidy was primarily introduced and for whom a remunerative sugar-beet crop has become a vital necessity, he will consider taking steps to amend the present Act in such a way as to restrict the powers of the Sugar Commission where contract prices seriously affecting the prospects of recovery in agriculture are concerned?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I am aware that, in their award on the terms of the 1937 sugar beet contract, the Sugar Commission have continued the principle adopted in previous years of differential prices designed to secure an adequate throughput of beet in the factories. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. De CHAIR: Is my right hon. Friend aware that sugar beet is an absolute necessity in Norfolk, and that it is precisely because the factories know


that the farmers cannot do without it that they have declined to pay an enhanced bonus?

Mr. MORRISON: I am aware that the principle of differentiation exists in order to secure an adequate throughput of beet, and I must adhere to the terms of my original answer on this matter.

MALTING BARLEY.

Mr. De CHAIR: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Brewers' Society has announced that there is not enough home-grown malting barley available for their requirements this year; whether he is satisfied that this is the case; and, if so, what are the sources of his information as to the available stocks?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I understand that the Brewers' Society have informed the Import Duties Advisory Committee that there is a possibility that there will not be a sufficient quantity of good quality home-grown malting barley for the requirements of brewers this season, and that the Committee are making inquiries into the matter. I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

MILK REORGANISATION COMMISSION.

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the undertakings given by him and by the Minister of Health that upon receipt of the report of the Milk Reorganisation Commission the Government would consider the extension of the existing schemes for the provision of milk, either free or at cheap rates to needy consumers, he is now in a position to make a further statement;
(2) whether, in view of the declared policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage the consumption of liquid milk, they intend to adopt measures to give effect to the relevant recommendations of the Milk Reorganisation Commission?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I have been asked to reply. The recommendations of the Milk Reorganisation Commission which, as my hon. Friend is aware, cover a very wide field, will receive the careful consideration of the Ministers concerned. I am not in a position at present to make any further statement.

Mr. SANDYS: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that an early opportunity will be given to discuss the report of the Commission in relation to the general nutrition policy?

Mr. MORRISON: I could not answer as to the earliness of such an opportunity, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the whole matter is being carefully considered, and as soon as possible some statement will be made.

Mr. SANDYS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great wish to discuss the question from the point of view not only of the producer but of the Government's nutrition policy?

Mr. MORRISON: I can assure my hon. Friend that all relative considerations of that character will be borne in mind.

LABOUR, NORFOLK.

Mr. T. COOK: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make concerning the shortage of labour in the agricultural districts of the county of Norfolk

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Captain DOWER: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is a similar shortage of labour in the agricultural districts of Cumberland, and will he consider training some of the miners there who have very little chance of ever getting work again?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE (ENGINEERS, OVERTIME).

Mr. VIANT: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the overtime worked by the telephone engineers in the London district during the period of 1st January, 1934, to 30th September, 1936, amounts in the aggregate to 4,036,712 hours, and that this, on the basis of a 48-hour week, amounts to an additional 84,103 weeks of employment, which if spread over the whole period would have given employment to an additional 539 men; and whether he will give instructions that will increase the rate of recruitment and thereby cause this present policy to cease?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): I am fully aware of the position; and, as intimated in my reply to the hon. Member's question of the 23rd instant, everything possible is being done to accelerate the rate of recruitment and reduce the amount of overtime.

Mr. VIANT: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House what the difficulty is in this matter?

Major TRYON: One obvious difficulty is that we have to train these people before they become effective for purposes of reducing overtime. We are doing as much as we can, and I am entirely in sympathy with the hon. Member's point of view.

NIGHT TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. DAY: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to remedy the difficulty experienced by subscribers at present in obtaining answers from telephone exchanges (especially in the country areas) after 10 o'clock in the evening; and whether he will give particulars of any steps that have been recently taken to strengthen this service?

Major TRYON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on the 9th instant.

Mr. DAY: Does it apply specially to the country areas?

Major TRYON: If the hon. Member will read the answer I gave him, he will see how it applies.

WIRELESS LICENCES.

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Postmaster-General what is the present approximate revenue of the Post Office for wireless licences issued in respect of receiving apparatus connected with wireless exchanges in this country?

Major TRYON: The total revenue from wireless licences issued in respect of receiving apparatus connected with wireless exchanges in this country is about £117,850 a year. Ten per cent. of the licence revenue is retained by the Post Office.

INLAND LETTER MAILS (COST OF DELIVERY).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Postmaster-General whether he can furnish an estimate of the percentage of

the costs of the delivery of postal packets which arises from overhead expenses, from terminal charges, that is to say collection, sorting, and delivery, and from the conveyance of inland mails, respectively

Major TRYON: The cost of handling inland letter mails may be apportioned roughly as follows: 53 per cent. collection, sorting and delivery, 7 per cent. conveyance, and 40 per cent. overhead expenses, that is, administration, supervision, accommodation, leave and pension liability.

TELEPHONE KIOSK (GREAT COMBERTON).

Mr. De la BERE: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of his declared aim to have a telephone kiosk in every village, he will inquire into the difficulties which the inhabitants of Great Comberton, Pershore, in Worcestershire, are having to get one erected in their village?

Major TRYON: The announcement of which the hon. Member is presumably thinking related only to villages where there is a Post Office; and there is none at Great Comberton. The case therefore falls within the Tercentenary Concession, under which the village can have a kiosk if the local authority undertakes to pay for five years a fixed rental of £4 per annum. So far, there has been no application from the local authority.

Mr. De la BERE: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware of the very great inconvenience to many residents in that part of the country?

Major TRYON: I think that if there were a large number of people suffering great inconvenience it would be up to them to pay the £4 for a telephone and get the benefit of it.

BROADCASTING (ELECTRICALPLANT, INTERFERENCE).

Mr. STOREY: asked the Postmaster-General what steps his Department take in order to compel the owner of electrical plant which interferes with the reception of broadcast programmes by receiving stations in the neighbourhood to instal suppression apparatus?

Major TRYON: I have no statutory power to compel owners of electrical


plant which causes interference with broadcast reception to instal suppression apparatus, although in such cases efforts are made by my Department to discover a remedy and to persuade the persons concerned to avail themselves of it. A committee appointed by the Institution. of Electrical Engineers has recently investigated the subject and has recommended that statutory powers should be sought. The committee's recommendations are at present under consideration.

KING GEORGE NATIONAL MEMORIAL.

Sir W. DAVISON: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, seeing that the general committee of the King George V National Memorial Fund, representing all parts of the country, have so far had no opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the suitability of the curtailed site in Abingdon Street for the memorial, the Government will see that the committee are given such an opportunity before a final decision is come to as to handing over any property in Old Palace Yard belonging to the State, especially having regard to the fact that, were the Parliament Square site to be approved by the general committee, an additional sum of at least £100,000 would be available for the King George the Fifth Playing Fields, while a beautiful eighteenth-century building in Old Palace Yard would be saved from destruction?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: (for the First Commissioner of Works): The objects to which the funds subscribed to the Lord Mayor's National Memorial Fund were to be devoted were announced by the late Lord Mayor. It was recognised from the first that it might not be possible to complete the whole of the scheme at Abingdon Street, and this was publicly announced. The subscriptions of the public were asked, and have been received for a memorial at Abingdon Street, and not elsewhere. On the basis of the scheme so announced the Government has made an offer, subject to Parliamentary approval, which has been accepted by the Lord Mayor on behalf of the Memorial Fund. In these circumstances my Noble Friend is not prepared

to intervene in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend. In any case he is not aware on what calculations my hon. Friend is relying in his suggestion that, had the Parliament Square site been the choice of the Lord Mayor's Memorial Fund, an additional sum of £100,000 would be available for the King George the Fifth Playing Fields.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my hon. Friend aware that the General Committee only approved of the Abingdon Street site on the statement that a view of the memorial would be opened up from Lambeth Bridge and Millbank, and that the curtailed site was not submitted to them? With regard to the point at the end of my question, is my hon. Friend aware that there would be no charge whatever on the fund in respect of site if Parliament Square were adopted, as the whole cost of this site would be provided by public bodies

Mr. HUDSON: With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the General Committee did not make the appeal. The late Lord Mayor made it on his own authority, and it wits made abundantly clear, in broadcasts by the late Lord Mayor, by the Prime Minister and by Lord Macmillan that money was being asked for for the Abingdon Street site, and not for Parliament Square. As regards the second part, the figure quoted by my hon. Friend is based on pure conjecture.

Sir W. DAVISON: No, Sir.

REGENT'S PARK.

. Mr. LIDDALL: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will plant the open-air theatre site in the Queen Mary Garden, Regent's Park, from which the public is excluded for 10 months of the year, with crocuses, daffodils, narcissi, hyacinths and tulips so that the appearance of its visible portions may be softened during the spring months; and will he ask the garden designers of the Lincoln firms to help him about the awkward ground slope?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: My Noble Friend regrets that he is unable to accept the suggestions made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. LIDDALL: Does not my hon. Friend wish to see a brighter London?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir; but the result of planting bulbs in the particular spot suggested would be to make a more drab London rather than a brighter London at the time of the Coronation.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS (SMOKE).

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether steps are being taken to abolish the smoke nuisance from the Houses of Parliament and Government Departments in Whitehall arising from the use of raw coal supplied through the Office of Works?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: My Noble Friend does not admit that a smoke nuisance exists in respect especially of the Houses of Parliament and Government offices. It is the practice of the Office of Works to use smokeless fuel whenever local circumstances make it possible without an unreasonable increase of cost.

Mr. ADAMS: Surely it is manifest, to anyone who cares to see it, and it is a very bad example.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is there not bound to be a smoke nuisance when raw coal is burned, and is it not possible for the Office of Works to use smokeless fuel for these buildings?

Mr. HUDSON: I said in my answer that smokeless fuel is used whenever circumstances make it possible without an unreasonable increase of cost. Recently smokeless fuel has gone up very materially in cost.

Mr. THORNE: Would it not be possible to use gas fires, which would do away with all smoke?

KEW GARDENS (REFRESHMENT PAVILION).

Sir EDMUND FINDLAY: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will consider introducing the service of alcoholic refreshments at the refreshment pavilion in Kew Gardens?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: The refreshment caterers have approached my Noble Friend on this subject, and he has given them authority to apply to the licensing justices for a licence for the sale of alcoholic drinks with meals.

Mr. GALLACH ER: In view of the shortage of malting barley this year, could it not be held up till next year?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

.IRON ORE (IMPORTS).

Mr. THORNE: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of Spanish iron ore that was imported into this country for the first five months of this year, and the following months up to the nearest available date; and from what part of Spain the iron ore was imported?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The imports of iron ore and concentrates into the United Kingdom consigned from Spain amounted to 526,000 tons during the five months ended May, 1936, and to 486,000 tons during the succeeding period of five months. It is not possible to state from what part of Spain these imports were consigned.

Mr. THORNE: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many tons of iron ore have been imported into this country from Newfoundland for the 12 months ended June, 1936, and to the nearest available date; the price per ton; and the difference in price between Newfoundland and Spanish iron ore?

Dr. BURGIN: During the 12 months ended June, 1936, the imports of iron ore and concentrates into this country consigned from Newfoundland and the Coast of Labrador amounted to 64,000 tons, the average declared value of these imports being 18s. 10d. per ton. The average declared value of the corresponding imports during the same period consigned from Spain was 15s. 9d. per ton.

PLUMAGE.

Mr. LEVY: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in consequence of the prohibition of the importation of plumage imposed by the Act of 1921, foreign manufacturers of fabrics and of fancy shoes in. which this


plumage is used for decorative effect are able to enter the home market and world markets without any competition from British manufacturers; and whether he will consider amending the 1921 Act so as to enable British manufacturers to import the plumage and plumage waste necessary to the manufacture of these goods?

Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): In regard to the home market, I am afraid that my hon. Friend has been misinformed, since prohibited plumage may not be imported into the United Kingdom in any form. As regards plumage required here for the production of goods for export, I understand that the importation of the varieties which are principally used in fabrics and on fancy shoes is not prohibited. In these circumstances the answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. LEVY: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that a bale of this particular plumage is still lying at the Customs quay, because its entrance into this country is prohibited; and therefore—

Mr. SPEAKER: rose—

Mr. LEVY: May I complete my supplementary question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving a lot of information, but not asking a question.

Mr. LEVY: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply which has been given to my question, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

YUGOSLAVIA (COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT).

Mr. CHANNON: asked the President, of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement as to the result of the recent negotiations with the Government of Yugoslavia on the subject of trade between the two countries?

Captain WALLACE: I am glad to be able to inform the House that a Commercial Agreement with Yugoslavia was signed on 27th November and will be published as soon as possible. Its chief provision is for the issue of sufficient licences for the import into Yugoslavia of United Kingdom goods which are subject to import restrictions and the imports of which have declined seriously in recent months.

There will be an issue of licences in respect of December which is at double the rate of recent issues, and provision has been made for regular issues thereafter. The total value of the licences so to be issued will depend on the total value of exports from Yugoslavia to the United Kingdom. I have every reason to hope that the Agreement will result in an immediate increase in United Kingdom exports to Yugoslavia, and will re-establish the commercial relations between the two countries on a satisfactory basis.

Mr. LEACH: Are we to take it that this agreement does not contain, any tax upon imported food for a change?

Captain WALLACE: The hon. Member had better wait and see.

EX-SERVICE MEN (WAR. DISABILITY).

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the appointment of a commission to review the position of all ex-service men who claim to be suffering from the effects of the last War, and to see that adequate payments be made while there is need?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I have no evidence to indicate that any special inquiry is called for. I would remind the hon. Member that any claim by an ex-service man to be disabled by his War service can still be considered and, if it is ascertained to be well-founded, he will receive whatever compensation may be appropriate. Moreover, the statutory benefits of the various social services that provide for sickness, unemployment, and need, are available to ex-service men who also have many privileges of their own under these services.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the large amount of suffering among ex-service men, who have great difficulty in proving that it arises directly out of the War, will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation of representatives of all parties in the House who would lay this evidence before him?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put that request forward in the usual way. I am not quite sure that I should be the right Minister.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Prime Minister not aware that having to make a well-founded claim means that the benefit of the doubt goes against the ex-service man and not for him?

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is still in force a seven-years' time limit, which makes it impossible for ex-service men who have not already applied for pensions to apply?

ARMS (PRIVATE MANUFACTURE).

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have yet decided what action they will take to implement the recommendations made in the report of the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of Arms?

The PRIME MINISTER: The report of the Royal Commission is still under Examination, and until His Majesty's Government have had an opportunity of considering the results of this examination, they are not in a position to decide what action they will take to implement the recommendations made in the report.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: In view of the fact that the Government are this year purchasing about £80,000,000 worth of munitions, the greater part of which comes from private firms, and that the Royal Commission recommended, in the interests of the defence of the nation, that their proposal should be adopted, therefore—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a very long question.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: I was going to end it by asking if the Government regard it as a matter of urgency to reach a decision on the matter.

DEPRESSED AREAS.

47. Mr. TINKER: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the appointment of a Minister whose purpose will be to look ahead and examine the probabilities of areas becoming depressed through the closing down of works, so that he will be in a position to advise the Government what steps should be taken to prevent distress and unemployment?

The PRIME MINISTER: Questions of the kind which the hon. Member has in mind may affect a number of Government Departments, and also concern local interests. I doubt whether it would conduce to the object which he presumably has in view to attempt to make a single Minister responsible for considering them.

Mr. TINKER: Is it not well to have someone looking forward and getting ready for this kind of thing rather than have distress and the Special Area business afterwards?

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree with the hon. Member that it is an important question, but I do not think the need for decision is imminent. The conditions of the world are changing so fast that it is very difficult to know what the exact circumstances will be when the fall in trade ultimately comes. Of course, every Government must have these matters in mind.

Mr. SHINWELL: As the matter is urgent and the Minister of Labour has too much work to do, would it not be desirable to ask some other member of the Government to tackle the job?

Sir RONALD ROSS: Would it not be more pertinent for the next Socialist Government to have such a Minister?

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Mr. PARKER: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to restore staff harmony and public confidence in the British Broadcasting Corporation, he will consider holding a full public inquiry into staff conditions in general, in view of the fact that the recent board of inquiry was limited to the Lambert v. Levita case?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am quite unable to accept the sweeping imputations against the British Broadcasting Corporation implied in the hon. Member's question. He is no doubt aware that the Board of Inquiry into the case he mentions has not yet completed its investigations and clearly there can be no question of anticipating any of the findings of that board. I would incidentally remind the hon. Member that examination into staff conditions is a function of the Treasury and that, if occasion arises, its machinery


is appropriate and available for the case of any institution dependent on public funds.

Sir P. HANNON: Has any complaint of any sort, kind or description reached the Prime Minister of want of harmony in the British Broadcasting Corporation except in the particular case that is now under investigation?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to receive the report of the Board of Inquiry?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not without notice.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (CARRIAGE OF MUNITIONS TO SPAIN) BILL.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: asked the Prime Minister whether the Governments of His Majesty's Dominions have been consulted on the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Bill; and whether they propose to ask their respective Parliaments to pass similar legislation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have been asked to reply. The Bill does not apply to ships registered in the Dominions, and therefore no question of consultation with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions arises. They have been informed of the proposal to legislate on this subject. I am not aware whether any of them contemplate taking similar action.

Sir P. HARRIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Foreign Secretary on the matter, because if the Dominions are not to be included, the embargo will necessarily not be effective? Will he make representations to the Dominions to see that the same conditions are provided for by similar legislation?

Mr. MacDONALD: The whole matter has been considered in consultation with the Foreign Office, and the Dominions have been informed of our intention to legislate. I think the question that the hon. Baronet raises is largely an academic one, as there are very few Dominion registered vessels of the type concerned.

Mr. DALTON: Are there not a number of Australian vessels, for instance, which fall within this category, and is it not most desirable not only to inform the Dominions of our decision but to invite their opinion?

Mr. MacDONALD: We have not taken any decision affecting the Dominions; therefore, consultation prior to our legislation was quite unnecessary. I am advised that there are very few Dominion registered ships of the type that might be involved.

Sir P. HARRIS: Would it not be very serious if a Canadian ship were stopped in these conditions and found carrying arms? Would it not be wiser, as the Foreign Office does represent the Dominions, to persuade them formally to pass similar legislation?

Mr. MacDONALD: If there were any evidence that Dominion registered ships were likely to be involved, certainly one would have to consider the matter further, but on the present evidence I do not think that further action is necessary.

Mr. ATTLEE: Are we to understand that in these rather critical international questions there is no previous consultation with the Dominions when action of this kind is being taken?

Mr. MacDONALD: It is quite unnecessary to consult the Dominions with regard to legislation in this House unless that legislation is going to affect the Dominions.

Sir P. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Foreign Secretary again? Obviously it does affect them.

COUNTY COURTS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1934.

Mr. DAY: asked the Attorney-General whether he will give particulars of any proceedings that have been instituted under the County Courts (Amendment) Act, 1934, against any persons or debt collectors who have written letters purporting to have the appearance of being issued by the county courts?

Commander SOUTHBY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. As far as my hon. and learned Friend


is aware, proceedings have been taken in one case under Section 31 of the County Courts (Amendment) Act, 1934. The defendant pleaded guilty and was fined £10 and ordered to pay two guineas costs.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (RECRUITING).

Sir W. DAVISON: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will inform the House as to the reasons for the rule which expressly forbids officers of the Ministry in Employment Exchanges in any circumstances to volunteer information or suggest the desirability of enlisting in His Majesty's Forces to applicants desiring a job; and whether the continuance of this rule will now be reconsidered

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As regards the first part of the question, I understand that this matter is to be raised on the Motion for Adjournment within the next few days. My right hon. Friend will then be able to deal with -tae matter more fully than is possible in a Parliamentary answer. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 23rd November.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether there is any other employment except employment in the Army as to which officials of the Ministry are forbidden to inform applicants for work?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down that question.

Sir W. DAVISON: It is down.

SLUM CLEARANCE (BIRMINGHAM).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the plight of the small shopkeepers in Great Barr Street, Birmingham, whose customers have been removed owing to the slum clearance order in that street; whether, in view of the general desire of the tenants of the demolished houses to live again in that particular area, he will urge the Birmingham City Council to

build similar maisonettes there to those the council erected in the Glover Street area?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The Great Barr Street clearance areas were dealt with by means of Clearance Orders and under this procedure the cleared site remains in possession of the owners who are, of course, free to redevelop it subject to any conditions that may be imposed by the local authority.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Have these traders no redress?

Mr. HUDSON: Under Section 41 of the Housing Act, 1930, which was extended by the Act of 1935 to cover this particular type of case, shopkeepers not themselves resident in unfit properties whose trade has been substantially diminished by the removal of population can receive payment from the local authority in compensation.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Would my hon. Friend make that clear locally so that shopkeepers can take the necessary steps?

Mr. HUDSON: I hope that this question and answer will receive publicity and achieve the object which my hon. Friend has in view.

COST-OF-LIVING INQUIRY (NUTRITION).

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Minister of Health when the present investigation into the distribution of working-class family expenditure will be completed; and whether the scope of this inquiry is such as will provide all the necessary data to enable the Government to formulate a comprehensive nutrition policy.

Mr. HUDSON: It is not yet possible to say when the necessary inquiries will be completed, but they are being pursued with all necessary expedition.

Mr. SANDYS: Will my hon. Friend answer the second part of the question?

Mr. HUDSON: That is included in my answer. Inquiries are being pursued with all the necessary expedition.

Mr. SANDYS: Will he tell us whether the scope of this inquiry is such as will


provide all the necessary data to enable the Government to formulate a comprehensive nutrition policy, which is the second part of the question?

Mr. HUDSON: My hon. Friend can rely upon the Government getting all the necessary data together before they formulate any policy.

Mr. SANDYS: Will my hon. Friend answer the question which is whether the scope of this inquiry is sufficient for the Government to formulate their nutrition policy when it has been completed.

Mr. HUDSON: I think that my hon. Friend had better wait and see the policy when it is introduced.

Mr. SANDYS: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

THE CORONATION (POTTERY, SCHOOL CHILDREN).

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the President of the Board of Education the names of pottery firms who have received orders or will receive orders from the board for Coronation pottery?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Shakespeare): In so far as it may be decided to give commemorative pottery to school children in connection with the Coronation, the orders will be given not by the board but by the responsible authorities of the schools. I hope that in such cases the articles chosen will be of British origin.

CENTRAL WELSH BOARD (EXAMINERS).

Miss RATHBONE: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the remuneration payable to examiners for the Central Welsh Board is habitually delayed for some five months after the examination is over, instead of the five weeks' interval usual with other examining bodies; that this affects at least 150 examiners and assistant examiners, means the delayed payment of several thousand pounds, and is

a considerable inconvenience to the examiners concerned; and will he take steps to ensure speedier payment?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I have no precise information on this matter, which concerns the internal administration of the Central Welsh Board and is not one in which the Board of Education have any power to intervene.

Miss RATHBONE: Will the hon. Member make some representations to the Welsh Central Board, and does not that board receive grants from the Board of Education

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think that it would be right that we should call the attention of the board to the complaints made by the hon. Lady.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS (NORTHUMBERLAND AND DURHAM).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what local authorities in the counties of Northumberland and Durham have appointed air-raid precautions co-ordinating officers?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am informed that the Northumberland County Council has decided to appoint an officer to promote coordination in the preparation of schemes of air raid precautions in the county. I am not aware that any further appointment of this nature has been made in these two counties.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (COUNTY CRICKET).

Mr. BENSON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was aware that the financial loss on county cricket during the past five years is almost identical with the amounts paid in Entertainments Duty; and whether he is prepared to make some concession to this sport?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I have seen statements in the sense of the first part of the question; with regard to the second part, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. BENSON: Is that reply supposed to give a modicum of hope to the county cricket organizations?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think that the hon. Member is well used to that form of reply.

Mr. JAGGER: If I give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the definite assurance that county cricket matches are not entertainment, will he then take steps in the matter?

TRANSPORT (ROAD SIGNS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: asked the Minister of Transport whether the word "Halt" on the signs "Major Road Ahead" is intended as a direction to the approaching motorist to hesitate or to stop; and, if the latter version of the word is intended, what further direction, if any, is given him as to when and in what circumstances he may proceed without conflicting with any Statutes or Regulations which apply to him?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): The Highway Code explains that under Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, it is an offence for any driver or cyclist not to go slow or to come to a stop before entering a major

road from a minor road if there is a traffic sign which requires him to do so, and the interpretation of the "Halt at Major Road Ahead" sign—as meaning that the motorist must stop at the major road itself—has been upheld by the High Court. No case has come to my right hon. Friend's notice in which a driver has failed to proceed after obeying this sign.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule to obtain the Committee stage of the Trunk Roads Bill and the Money Resolution relating to the Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners, etc. (Tenure of Office) Bill. We should also like to obtain some of the India and Burma Draft Orders which have recently been before the House, and which are exempted business.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 90.

Division No. 20.]
AYES.
[3.14 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Everard, W. L.


Albery, Sir Irving
Colman, N. C. D.
Findlay, Sir E.


A lien, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Fleming, E. L.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Assheton, R.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Furness, S. N.


Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Ganzonl, Sir J.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cranborne, Viscount
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Balniel, Lord
Crooke, J. S.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Goldie, N. B.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cross, R. H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Crossley, A. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bernays, R. H.
Culverwell, C. T.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Blair, Sir R.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Blaker, Sir R
Dawson, Sir P.
Guy, J. C. M.


Blindell, Sir J.
De Chair, S. S.
Hannah, I. C.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
De la Bere, R.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Harbord, A.


Brass, Sir W.
Denville, Alfred
Harvey, Sir G.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Doland, G. F.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Haslam, Sir. I. (Bolton)


Bull, B. B.
Drewe, C.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Butler, R. A.
Duggan, H. J.
Hepworth, J.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Dunglass, Lord
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Cary, R. A.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. Br.W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Channon, H.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Elliston, G. S.
Holmes. J. S.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Elmley, Viscount
Hopkinson, A.


Clarke, F. E.
Emmett, C. E. G. C.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)




Hudson, R. S. (Southport).
Munro, P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Hulbert, N. J.
Neven-Spence. Maj. B. H. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Jackson, Sir H.
Palmer. G. E. H.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Keeling, E. H.
Patrick, C. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Kimball, L.
Petherick, M.
Storey, S.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Pilkington, R.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Plugge, L. F.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Levy, T.
Procter, Major H. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Lewis, O.
Ramsbotham, H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Liddall, W. S.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tate, Mavis C.


Lloyd, G. W.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Remer, J. R.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Lyons, A. M.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Turton, R. H.


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)
Ward, Irene (Walisend)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Rowlands, G.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Maitland, A.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wells, S. R.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salt. E. W.
Williams, H, G. (Croydon, S.)


Mayhew, Lt..Col. J.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Sandys, E. D.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Moreing, A. C.
Savery, Servington
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Scott, Lord William
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Selley, H. R.



Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'st'r)
Shakespeare, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Muirhead, Lt.-Col, A. J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
PHU, D. N.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ridley, G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rltson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon, C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Banfield, J. W.
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. A.


Barr, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Batey, J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Belienger, F.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Buchanan, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Dabble, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Bother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR 'FHE NOES—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Whiteley,

SELECTION (STANDINGCOMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Roland Robinson; and had

appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Commander Agnew and Mr. Assheton. Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

Captain Edward Charles Cobb, for Borough of Preston.

Robert Gibson, Esquire, K.C., for Burgh of Greenock.

Orders of the Day — TRUNK ROADS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Transfer of trunk roads to Minister of Transport.)

The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment I have selected is the third one on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), but I think I ought to say that I had some doubts about selecting this Amendment, because I rather think that the Minister already has these powers. If the hon. Member will move his Amendment and explain its effect shortly, perhaps the Minister will indicate whether he has those powers and may satisfy the hon. Member.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after "after," to insert:
"the insertion of notice of his intention in the Press and after."
This Amendment and the other Amendments in my name all have the same general purpose. It is that ordinary persons should have their rights properly protected, and I think that can only be done if they are made aware of the intention of the Minister to take action under Sub-section (3) of this Clause in regard to a new road or the improvement of an existing road. All sorts of people with perfectly legitimate rights and interests may desire to make representations, but it seems to me that they will not have effective power to do so. If it be the case that they are already adequately protected I shall be glad, but I would like to make sure that people who ought to know about these things will be effectively made aware of them, and will have an opportunity of giving expression to their grievances and explaining their difficulties before a final decision is taken.

3.56 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): At this stage, when we are going to try by accommodation to make this Bill the best possible Measure to secure its objective, on which I think there is agreement, I will answer the

speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) in the spirit in which he moved his Amendment. I think I can remove any apprehensions he may have that those likely to be affected will be left uninformed. The Bill provides that I shall give notice to the council of my intention to construct a by-pass. At that stage, of course, nobody is affected; it is merely the general outline of an intention; there is no route fixed, and therefore no one could possibly give notice. At all the subsequent stages, however, adequate notice is given, and there is adequate provision for securing local public inquiries.
The procedure to be followed is that I shall give notice of my general intention. There is three months' delay in which the matter can be discussed in general terms by the council and a local inquiry can, if necessary, be held. Then an Order is to be made fixing the date at which the exchange of roads is to take place as between the council and the Ministry, and there are powers to vary or revoke the Order in a subsequent Clause. It is only then that individuals could become concerned. I have to give public notice, including an individual notice, to each owner affected of my intention to make an Order empowering me to acquire the land compulsorily. If objections are received which do not relate exclusively to matters which can be dealt with by the tribunal by which compensation is to be assessed, I must hold a local inquiry. If no objections are made or if, after inquiry, I am satisfied that the compulsory Order should be made, I may make it. I must notify all the owners concerned and advertise in the local press the fact that I have made the Order, and any person who desires to question its validity may, within two months, go to the High Court.
I think my hon. Friend will agree that he is substantially met in the sense that at all stages where a person's property can be injuriously affected there is provision for objections to be raised and for a local inquiry. Further, there is adequate provision for public notice of my intention to be given. Lastly, there is an additional protection in the fact that, if a standard width is to be fixed, a similar procedure is followed in that everyone on the registers is given notice.
I hope, in those circumstances, my hon. Friend will feel satisfied, as I am, that complete justice is done in this matter.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I thank my right hon. Friend for his explanations, but I am afraid I did not follow them as well as I ought, because he did not indicate under which Sections that procedure is to be followed.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is under Section 13 of the Ribbon Development Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after "county," to insert "and borough."
This Amendment deals with a point which has been covered in a more general way by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), but perhaps my Amendment has greater claims for consideration. It is specific and limited. If the Committee will look at Sub-section (3) of the Clause they will find that the Minister takes power to supersede part of a trunk road by another road and before doing so he has to give notice to the county council and to consider any representation which may be made by that council. It seems to me that that accepts the principle that those who are specifically and directly interested shall receive notice from the Minister. What I ask in the Amendment is that a borough, which in certain cases is more directly interested than a county council, and particularly a non-county borough, shall receive from the Minister the same kind of notice which the Bill provides that he shall give to the county council. I ask that on these general grounds: It may be that the diversion of a road has some serious effect upon certain services in which a non-county borough is more directly interested than a county council. For example, the diversion may affect town-planning proposals of a non-county borough, or it may affect some scheme for housing, or in other ways directly and specifically affect the non-county borough more than a county council. I hope that the Minister will not regard my brevity as any indication of the strenght of my desire for the Amendment. I ask him to give the Amendment the most earnest consideration.

Mr. WELLS: I wish to support the Amendment, which is of considerable importance to the boroughs concerned. I trust that the Minister will accept it.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am the last person to think that brevity is any indication of lack of sincerity because, as the Committee are aware, I take considerable pains in trying to eliminate in advance every argument which I consider superfluous. Therefore, I recognise at once that, although my hon. Friend has not occupied very much time on this Amendment, he has a point of view which the Committee would be wise to consider. The Clause requires that where one road is to be superseded by another, notice shall be given to the county council in the area in which the road to be superseded may lie. My hon. Friend wishes the notice of my intention to supersede a road to be given also to every non-county borough within the area. Generally the county council is the proper channel of communication, and I do not wish to disturb the smooth water which runs through the usual channel. I feel that in all these matters it is the county councils which are administratively and financially responsible. In the circumstances I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. The absence of mention of the non-county borough does not in the least mean that the non-county borough will be left unaware of what is happening. The fact that I have informed the county council will presumably induce a discussion in the county council, and in that way the whole of the public will know what is going to happen, but in the ordinary relationship which exists between county councils and claiming authorities I do not think there will be any scope for omission to inform all those who might properly desire to be informed. No slight whatever is intended to the claiming authority, to whom my hon. Friend does not restrict this Amendment. I hope he will allow the machinery of the Bill to function without adding an additional cog.

Mr. MAITLAND: Although the statement of the Minister does not quite coincide with the point of view of the local authorities, I do not desire to impede or infringe upon any administrative duty, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert:
(4) Where an order has been made under the last foregoing Sub-section, Section thirty-two of the Local Government Act, 1929 (which entitles the councils of certain boroughs and urban districts to claim the functions of maintenance and repair of county roads), shall have effect as if the part of the trunk road to be superseded as aforesaid had become a county road on the date the making of the order, so, however, that any functions of maintenance and repair claimed under the said Section in respect of the said part shall not be exercisable until the date on which it becomes a county road.
I have altered the Amendment as it appears on the Paper by substituting for "before the said first day of April," the words "until the date on which it becomes a county road." Even with that alteration I am not quite satisfied that the object which I desire to achieve is achieved, and I would have preferred that the Amendment on the Paper in the name of other hon. Friends had been accepted. But as one is always grateful for any indication that the desires of a private Member are to be met by a large ministerial Department, I have acted on the precept that half a loaf is better than none. In anticipation, I a m much obliged to my right hon. Friend the Minister, because I understand he has indicated that he will give this matter most favourable consideration. I ask him that if, between now and the Report stage, it is found that the words I have suggested do not quite achieve the purpose which is intended, he will reconsider any representations made to him
.
Again, in view of the fact that the Clause is likely to be amended, I will be commendably brief and merely point oat that the object of the Amendment is to secure the position of certain local authorities who have certain rights under Section 32 of the Local Government Act of 1929 with regard to the repair and maintenance of roads. Under the Bill the part of the road which is a trunk road is, when superseded by another, cease to be a trunk road and again becomes a county road. There are many councils with a population of over 20,000 who maintain their roads under the 1929 Act, and the object of the Amendment to ensure that when the road in question ceases to be a trunk road and again becomes a county road it shall become a

claimed road as if it was a claimed road before the commencement of the Bill. If the Amendment is not accepted I think an injustice will be done such as the Minister would not desire to see. As I understand the Amendment is to be accepted I content myself with moving it.

Mr. WELLS: I support the Amendment. There is no doubt that these trunk roads will by-pass some of the boroughs through which the trunk roads have passed before, and these roads which have been under the control of the borough authorities may be left for a time before they come back to the authorities by which they have hitherto been controlled. They ought to come back to the original authority when the Minister does not require them for trunk roads.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend desires to preserve the status of claiming authorities, a status which it is not proposed to upset in this Bill because the Bill is confined only to consequential Amendments of the highway law on my becoming a highway authority. As I have specifically stated, although I know it does not meet with favour in all quarters, I do not intend to interfere in any way with the status of claiming authorities. It is right that when a road reverts to the status which it occupied before it became a trunk road it should go back to the authority entitled to administer it. That is the purpose of the Amendment, to enable a road claim to revive immediately the road ceases to be a trunk road. I cannot see how, in justice, I could resist an Amendment of that kind, subject to the qualification that my lion. Friend made, that between now and Report I shall consider the actual wording of the Amendment; but in order that my hon. Friend may be in no doubt about my intentions I have great pleasure, on behalf of the Government, in accepting the Amendment.

Mr. MAITLAND: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.

Amendment agreed to.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, after "authority," to insert:
or was being improved by an authority in the exercise of functions under section thirty-two of the Local Government Act, 1929.


As the Bill stands there is some doubt as to whether the highway authority will cover the claiming authority as well. Accordingly, to make the matter abundantly clear, I propose to insert these words.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 32, leave out "highway."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

4.15 p.m.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I rise to put a question to the Minister on this Clause, in order to give him an opportunity of clarifying the position under these proposals in reference to major bridges. Under this Clause the Minister is taking power to acquire for the Government the main trunk roads specified in the First Schedule. Further, he is taking power to construct new roads where he considers it expedient to do so and to improve existing roads, for the purpose of superseding parts of trunk roads. When we examine the First Schedule to which reference is made in Clause 1, we find no reference whatever to the four major bridge schemes in the country, without which, in our opinion, the national ownership and supervision of the trunk roads system will be ineffective. The first of these schemes to which I refer is that for the bridge over the Severn. The Severn bridge scheme has been a subject of discussion for a long time. We understood that it was approved not only in principle but in detail by the Ministry. The proposed new bridge there was to cost slightly less than 22,500,000. The second major bridge scheme to which no reference whatever is made is the Humber scheme which we know has the approval and consent of the Minister, subject to a proviso contained in a letter written by him to the Town Clerk of Hull on 5th November. In the course of that letter the Minister said that he appreciated the care with which the case for the bridge had been presented and that he had given the greatest consideration to the scheme but he added, that having regard to the overriding importance of the National Defence programme and the demand which that programme would make on the national resources,

the Government have come to the conclusion that they would not be justified in embarking upon the execution of these public works at the moment, but this decision does not exclude reconsideration of the scheme at a later date.
We are anxious that the Minister should further explain his position in this matter. Are we to understand that, in the meantime at all events, it is the intention of the Government not to proceed with any of these major bridge schemes, without which, as I say, a national trunk road system must fail to be fully effective, and must to a certain extent result in a useless expenditure of public money. In the case of the third scheme to which I refer, that of the proposed bridge over the Tay, the remarkable fact is that we have a specific pledge dating back to 14th October, 1923, when, a statement was made by the late Sir William Joynson-Hicks, as he then was, on behalf of the Government. He said they proposed to construct a road-bridge across the Tay which had already been demanded but which had had to wait for the money. This bridge would be two miles long, and the estimate of the cost was something under £1,000,000. The Dundee Town Council, he added, would provide some of it and the Government would provide a greater portion, and as soon as the Dundee Council and the councils for Fife and Forfar came to terms, the bridge would be put in hand. They have come to terms long ago, and before the Minister proceeds further with this Clause we are entitled to ask what steps he proposes to take to implement that specific Government pledge.
The remaining scheme to which I wish to call attention is that of the Forth Road-bridge. This is estimated to cost in the neighbourhood of £3,500,000, and without such a bridge we suggest that the whole purpose of the Great North Road will be rendered, to some extent at any rate, nugatory. The Government propose to take over the road running from Edinburgh along to Stirling and. then back north again into Fifeshire. Edinburgh is the capital city of Scotland, and for many years pressure has been brought to bear on successive Governments to do the obvious thing in this respect, which is to build a road-bridge across the Forth, linking up the Great North Road with about half the population of Scotland—because almost half the population of the country reside


within the area affected by the, proposed Forth and Tay Bridges. We are exceedingly anxious about this matter. We are sympathetic to the Bill and do not propose to offer any obstruction or to create any trouble in connection with it. But we hope the Minister will accept this opportunity to give some information to the people of the, country who are anxious to see these great rivers adequately bridged, the population adequately served with transport and trade and industry promoted. We are anxious that any useless expenditure upon roads should be avoided, and we hope that the Minister will make the position clear. The case for these bridges has been proven time and time again, and I ask the Minister to give the House and the country the fullest information at his disposal. We want to know when these schemes are to be put in hand.

The CHAIRMAN: I think at this stage ought to enter a caveat to the effect that I may find it necessary to restrict this discussion. I do not, of course, wish to curtail any information which the Minister is willing and able to give, if I can avoid doing so, but while some of the points raised in the right hon. Gentleman's speech are, no doubt, in order on the present occasion, I must call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the subject of new bridges, to be constructed where there are no bridges at the present time, is not a matter which comes within the scope of this Measure.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I call attention to the fact that Clause specifically provides for the taking over of county bridges? We are not yet discussing that Clause, I know, but I submit that as Cause 3 gives the Minister power to take over bridges at present owned by county councils, so Clause 1 gives the Minister power, riot only to take over existing trunk roads, but to construct new roads where it is considered expedient, or to enlarge a road.

The CHAIRMAN: Only with a, view to superseding any part of the trunk road. There is a limitation.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I appreciate that point, but it seems to us that there is no possibility of getting a discussion on any other part of the Bill except Clause 1,

on the desirability or otherwise of spending public money on enlarging and developing roads where that money could be saved if instead we built these bridges.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is correct in that he has chosen the best place in the Bill for his purpose, but that does not necessarily mean that the place is good enough. He is also correct in what he says about the taking over of existing bridges, but there certainly is a limitation on what can be discussed with regard to the construction of new bridges, unless they are part of the scheme for the supersession of an existing trunk road. I only wish to make it quite clear, so that if the Minister wishes to reply to the right hon. Gentleman he will be able to deal with the matter in such a way that the Committee will not be anxious to debate it at great length. But I must give the warning that it may be necessary to restrict the discussion.

4.28 p. m.

Mr. EDE: May I draw attention to the fact that Sub-section (1) of this Clause makes the Minister the highway authority for trunk roads, and after the passing of the Bill no one other than the Minister will have power to spend money on these trunk roads? Therefore, unless it is suggested that these roads are to come to an end at the rivers which it is supposed to bridge, it would be necessary to get information from the Minister as to what he proposes to do in the matter of bridging the rivers.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not expressing any opinion as to whether the Bill does anything absurd or not, but I am certain of this, that any road which ends at an impassable river where there is no bridge, cannot be described as a trunk road.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: With regard to the Severn Bridge scheme, in the original proposal which came before the Committee it was suggested that a percentage of the estimated cost would be raised by a system of tolls and that ultimately the bridge would become part of the trunk road and I suggest that perhaps that aspect of the Severn Bridge scheme might be open to discussion on this Clause. The bridge would ultimately become part of the trunk road from England into Wales.

The CHAIRMAN: I could hardly do that if it did not exist, and that is just the kind of thing that I am afraid I shall have to rule out.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Subsection (3) of Clause 1 definitely considers the question of the Minister making a new road to take the place of a road at present in existence, and surely under that Sub-section we are entitled to discuss the possibility of the Minister making a new road? Take the Forth Bridge road as an example, to save a considerable amount of mileage by cutting across and building a bridge. I venture to suggest on that Sub-section we are entitled to discuss it, and to interrogate the Minister in order to discover how far the powers that he is taking under this Bill would enable the Minister to act in pursuance of his plan to make bridges across the Forth and in other places.

Mr. TURTON: May I point out that Clause 13 says:
 'Road' means a highway, and includes any part of a highway and any proposed road and any bridge over which a highway passes or a proposed road is intended to pass and trunk road ' shall be construed accordingly.

Mr. DENMAN: Are we not necessarily confined to ally roads that are referred to in Schedule I, or roads in substitution thereof Or are we able to debate potential trunk roads that are outside that Schedule?

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is right up to a certain point, and I think the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is also right up to a certain point, but only up to that point. The construction of new roads as such is not within the Bill or the Resolution; it is merely the construction of roads to supersede parts of existing roads and that cannot be construed to mean a new road in an entirely different direction altogether. I hope there will not be any great difficulty about this in practice, but, as I said, after the right hon. Gentleman had made his speech, I must keep the Debate on this subject within some limits, because it is quite clear that we cannot have a discussion on bridges or new bridges in places where under the present system, at any rate, they would not be any part of existing trunk roads.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: May I raise this point? I understood you to say a little while ago that a road which ended at a river, or something of that kind—if there were no road on the other side—would not be a trunk road. Now that is just what the road in the Minister's constituency does. It does leave off, and I hope your Ruling would not apply so as to take that road out of the list in the First Schedule to the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand there are other methods of crossing besides the bridge.

4.34 p.m.

Colonel ROPN ER: When the right hon. Gentleman opposite informed the Committee that he was going to talk on bridges I firmly believed that the first bridge to which he would refer would be the Selby Toll Bridge. For generations the Toll Bridge at Selby has been a great inconvenience, not only to the people of Selby, but to large areas of Yorkshire. The toll has been a levy on wages; it has been a tax on profits, it has hampered farming and without any shadow of doubt it has hampered the development of the town of Selby. For a large number of years the local council, the National Farmers' Union and leading citizens have pressed the West Riding and the East Riding County Councils to rid them of this nuisance. Recently another active body known as the Selby and District Development Committee has joined its protests against the existence of this toll. Lord Bingley—Colonel Lane Fox as he then was—spent a large amount of his Parliamentary time when he was Member for Barkston Ash in endeavouring to get this problem solved.
One reason for the delay has been that the bridge joins the West and East Ridings. Schemes for doing away with the bridge have alternately been wrecked on the Scylla of the West Riding or the Charybdis of the East Riding, and I am bound to say in this connection that I think the East Riding have been the greater sinners. But two or three years ago a joint committee of the West and East Ridings decided to have a complete and exhaustive survey made, and the firm of Sir Alexander Gibb was appointed to do this work. In due course Sir Alexander Gibb presented a full report and made recommendations. Perhaps I


should repeat at this juncture the assurance that this is not only a matter of local concern, but the present toll bridge is on the Liverpool-Hull main road which has recently been scheduled as a trunk road. Some months ago the West and East Riding Councils agreed on a scheme, bit for financial reasons, and possibly because rumours had reached the councils that the Minister might take over this road, work has not been started, although the Minister himself pressed the council to get on with the job. Well, it is now the responsibility of the Minister to put an end to this long standing grievance. I cannot believe that there is a toll bridge on any of the other roads which have been scheduled to become trunk roads. Surely this problem of Selby Bridge should be one of the first matters to receive the attention of the Minister. Surely the construction of a. new bridge should receive priority of treatment.
I have received, as I expect other hon. Members have received, a circular letter from the company of proprietors of Selby Bridge. I have never seen a document more full of misstatements and inaccuracies. The arguments used are biased and misleading, and I hope that hon. Members who may have been persuaded to believe some of the statements contained in this letter will make further inquiry before they rely too firmly upon them. As the Minister knows, the scheme has been approved by the East and West Riding County Councils, it has been approved by the Selby Council, everything is ready, plans are ready after the most careful examination—examination and inquiry which has lasted over months—and I would pray the Minister before we lave this Clause to give me the assurance, and to give the town of Selby the assurance for which we have been waiting for a large number of years, that Selby Toll Bridge will soon become a thing of the past.

The CHAIRMAN: Details about a bridge on one particular road would be better raised on the Schedule. It may be thought before discussing further the Minister may give some reply to the speech already made by the hon. and gallant Member, but I think I must ask the Committee not to discuss detailed items now which would come better on the Schedule. I shall have to give hon.

Members an opportunity in one place or the other.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Do I understand from the Ruling you have just given that you do not debar the Minister from giving a general answer to the points raised on the Clause outstanding?

The CHAIRMAN: That is so. I do not want to be too strict.

Colonel ROPNER: Do I understand you are debarring the Minister from replying to my speech unless I make it again?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member had better wait and see whether his appeal be answered by the Minister or not.

4.42 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I want to ask the Minister about a matter of rather general interest which affects urban districts. In the event of giving up part of a road which is a trunk road either by deviation or because of not wanting quite so much land, will he redelegate it to the local authority, whether borough or urban council, or whatever happens to be the highways authority to which the road belongs? If it is quite in order under Clause 1, will be give the local authority certain assurances? Because the Committee will be aware that whereas the local authorities have been the highway authorities before making the trunk road he himself now becomes the highway authority, and the various powers and the various expenses to which they may be liable as district councils or highway boards will be taken over presumably by him. In the case of any dispute which may arise between them and him there is a difficulty to this extent, that he himself is, I understand, to be the authority. There will be a difficulty in the fact that he is at the same time a highway authority and also the authority to whom they appeal. It is possible that the only way in which the Committee can get out of the difficulty is for the Minister during the progress of the Bill to make certain assurances which will be embodied in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and so will give the local authorities that feeling of confidence that they require, but which probably it will be almost impossible to embody in the Bill. I do not know whether


it is in order, if the Minister has engaged to give those assurances, to give them on Clause 1, but I am very glad to raise the point as the district councils and, I believe, highway boards have been anxious as to their position in this matter.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I want to make a few remarks of a general nature on Clause 1, with regard to the action taken by the Minister in constituting himself, for the first time, a highway authority. For many centuries the highway authorities of this country have been the local governing bodies. In fact, I believe the oldest Statute that is operated by the county councils is the Statute of Bridges, which was passed in what I believe is now regarded by some people as the dark ages. In taking over these duties at this particular juncture, the Minister of Transport does assume very heavy responsibilities, not merely for the highways, but for the countryside through which they pass.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech. We have passed the Second Reading of the Bill, which makes the Minister a highway authority.

Mr. EDE: Are we not entitled to inquire how the Minister proposes to use his functions as a highway authority

The CHAIRMAN: Hardly, I think, on this Clause. That again is a matter for the Second Reading or for the Third Reading possibly.

Mr. EDE: I will not pursue the matter now, but I hope that in exercising his functions the Minister will have due regard to reasonable local opinion with regard to the routes that roads should follow and the interference, if any, that they make with local amenities, because the one misgiving, I think, that is felt in some of the counties is lest the Minister should be able to exercise these powers in a manner more remote from local public opinion than the county councils have been in the past.
I wish to say a word with regard to bridges, and here I am fortified by the Ruling which you gave, Sir Dennis, on the point that I submitted to you, that if a road reached a river and there was no

bridge to carry it over, it was absurd and ridiculous. May I say that even if I was not compelled by the Rules of the House to do so, I heartily agree with you in that Ruling, and I very sincerely hope the Minister will bear it in mind as he exercises his functions, because there are several places in the country where, on quite important roads, some of which may well be used to supersede the trunk roads, he has to rely on ferries to get the traffic from one side of the river to the other.
I am not dealing with the southwestern part of the country, though I have suffered interminable delays, both at Torpoint and Saltash, in trying to get across the River Tamar: but across the Tyne, east of Newcastle, on any road that he proposes to use there to supersede that part of the Great North Road which goes through the county boroughs of Gateshead and Newcastle, he will be faced with the fact that there are very ancient and inefficient ferries which very considerably delay the traffic, and I sincerely hope that when he does supersede the Great North Road to the east of Newcastle, he will secure that an appropriate bridge shall be built, so that the great saving of time that could be made will be made under his auspices. If he can do that, I am sure that everyone in the country who has to use these ferries will rejoice in the fact that they have been handed over to the Minister of Transport. I sincerely hope that the vesting of these roads in the nation rather than in the local authorities will mean that these old established delays will be speedily removed.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will try to respond to the invitation of the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), without, I hope, unduly stretching the elasticity which you, Sir Dennis, have allowed. If this Bill be passed, I shall become the highway authority in respect of the 4,500 miles of trunk roads mentioned in the Schedule, and these roads include bridges, as has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in the point of Order which he raised. The definition Clause lays it down that these roads shall include bridges. Therefore, from the appointed day, I am the authority not only


over the roads in question, but over the bridges over them and, unfortunately, over the bridges that in some quarters it might be held ought to be over them. That is the position. No less is it true that there are other roads of great importance in the country, and just as there were giants before Agamemnon, there are other great roads in the country which doubtless require improvement, and for that purpose we shall continue to pay the grants that we now pay, some of them being upon a very considerable scale—for major improvements up to, in some cases, 85 per cent. of the total cost. It must not be assumed that all other roads in the country will immediately fall into disuse and disrepair when this Bill becomes law. They will remain under the ægis of the present highway authorities, who will be the recipients of grants, let us hope, upon the present scale. I have already announced that I do not intend in any way to reduce them.

Mr. DUNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be quite clear with regard to the grants upon the other roads which will remain under the control of local authorities, because the statement he 'has now made is very guarded? If that could be made clear, it would remove considerable misapprehension in the minds of some of us.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I did, in my Second Reading speech, make a declaration which I think the hon. Member requires me to repeat. Here are my exact words:
I make it plain that it is not the intention of the Government to reduce the rates of grant in respect of the maintenance on roads which are not transferred, nor is it the intention of the Government to curtail the five-year programme in course o c execution, and in respect of which the submissions now amount to £140,000,000."—[OFFICIAL -REPORT, 19th November, 1936; cols. 1954–5, Vol. 317.]
That is what the hon. Gentleman requires. These roads will continue to enjoy the assistance which they now enjoy—in some cases the grants are very considerable—and they ought not to fall i Ito disuse. It so happens that two of the bridges which the right hon. Member for West Stirling mentioned may become desirable, but I cannot add to what I lave said. Either bridges are on trunk roads or they 'are not. If they ought to be, if the trunk road terminates at a

place where a bridge ought to be built, I am answerable to Parliament, and it will be possible for anybody to raise these matters on the appropriate occasion. I have already made my declaration about the Severn Bridge, the Forth Bridge and the Humber Bridge, and that declaration had the effect of postponing their consideration, because, 'as I said, the Defence programme must have priority. I was careful not to condemn them as undesirable. In any event, they could not be erected for some years, because the sheer work of construction would take a considerable time, but I do not think it in any way detracts from the importance of this Bill that it has nothing to do with their construction. Obviously, I cannot take it further than that, because they are not in this Bill, and they are not on roads which are included in this Bill, but if and when the time comes to construct them, the Government of the day can make a real contribution towards such bridges. In the case of the Severn Bridge, we have offered 75 per cent. of the cost and done our level best to encourage its passage through this House. It was, however, rejected by a Private Bill Committee.
With regard to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), the bridge to which he refers will be on one of these trunk roads. I did define on the Second Reading the Government's ideas of what the trunk roads of the country should be. Perhaps I was a little ambitious, but I did lay down a rather high standard, and I need not repeat it now. I wanted them to be in all senses patterns for other roads, but I did offer as a warning that in road construction there is a hiatus between conception and achievement. You cannot just say, "I should like to have the whole of the trunk roads perfect," and find them perfect. It would be a question of many years to get them perfect, but that we have high aims in regard to them is beyond doubt, and at any rate anybody who reads my Second Reading speech will know what I feel upon that subject. Perhaps if I use general language of that kind, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash will be satisfied, because it would he impossible for me to take little bits of road or bridges upon them in the discussion of this Bill and to explain


exactly what I propose to do with regard to any particular one; but it will be open to me to by-pass Selby, in which case this problem of the toll bridge will be met.

Colonel ROPNER: I think the right hon. Gentleman has rather missed the point of my speech. The only difficulty is one of time. As I understand it, the scheme with regard to Selby Bridge has been approved, and we have waited a quarter of a century for a new bridge. Therefore, I am rather distressed to hear the Minister say that we may have to wait several years more. As I conceive it, there is no need for any hiatus on this occasion.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think that is rather a strange proposal to make. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's own council have apparently delayed the matter for 25 years, and I am only in the course of introducing the first Clause in this Bill, and then he says it is a matter of time and urgent. I realise what a packet of trouble I shall inherit, but all that I can assure him is that I will do my best, and that my successors will do their best, to make these trunk roads model roads. I cannot say more than that. What we shall do about Selby Bridge in particular will be a matter for decision when I have this Bill and have the power to do so. At the present moment I have no such power, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will accelerate the arrangements by which I shall get the necessary power.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) asked to whom roads would revert when they were superseded. They would revert to the authority which had them before—if it be the county, then to the county; if it be the claiming authority, then to the claiming authority—and in order that there should be no injustice in the matter, I did accept an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) a little while ago. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked whether I would take account of reasonable local opinion. Well, I think I have shown my desire to do that by deciding to take power to appoint the county councils as my agents. They have the necessary local knowledge, besides the

necessary technical knowledge. My failure to try to set up a new authority, and my preference for using the existing authorities, show that I attach some weight to the opinion of the authorities whom I am going to use, and I think I can safely assure the Committee that it will be our desire to have, as the hon. Member put it, every reasonable regard to local opinion and to local amenities. In respect of amenity, I inserted a passage in the Second Reading speech in which I paid great attention to that aspect of the subject which in the past has sometimes been ignored. I want these roads not only to be useful for the purpose of traffic, but in their proper setting and suitable to the nature of the country through which they pass.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say which of the bridges he regards as desirable? He said "three of the four." Do we understand that the Forth Bridge and the Tay Bridge, in his opinion and the opinion of his Department, are desirable? If so, will he have some regard to the Government pledge as far back as 1923 that one of these bridges would be proceeded with forthwith?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman in selecting that date associates himself to some extent with any blame for failure to construct. If there were a promise in 1923 several Governments will have to bear the responsibility for this omission. I can only say—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot say more—that the Government went out of their way not to reject any of the major bridges to which he referred, and the one over the Tay would obviously not be considered unless the Forth Bridge were going to be built. The Government went out of their way not to reject them, but said that the defence programme must have priority. We are constantly being urged to agree to the virtues of national planning. If national planning means anything, it means that the Government, in distributing their orders, endeavour so to spread them that the workpeople shall have the maximum advantage from them. At this time, when the defence programme is requiring so many orders, it seems to us that we should pay first attention to that programme, and when it has reached its concluding stages we can


then quite reasonably and in the best interests of industry have regard to these projects. They are not rejected, and if that is the assurance the right hon. Gentleman requires, he may have it. A case has been painstakingly prepared and put before us, and it has not been rejected.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Cannot the right hen. Gentleman put it higher than that?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I wish I could put it higher than that, but those are the facts.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: I would like to put a point to the Minister and try to keep, as far as I can, within your Ruling. Would the right hon. Gentleman construe the Severn Bridge, if it were built and taken over, as being in substitution for the present ferry and the Gloucester Road-bridge? If the bridge has to be held up because of the defence programme, is it not a fact that our western coast is the prime safety factor in regard -to imports and that the Severn Bridge would be a great factor in assisting the defence of this country?

The CHAIRMAN: Mention of the Severn Bridge shows that the hon. Member's argument does not come within my Ruling of what can be discussed.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, a ad agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Exclusion of county of London and of county boroughs.)

The CHAIRMAN: I do not propose to call any of the Amendments to this Clause.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.5 p.m.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I am sorry that you have decided not to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Salt) to leave out Sub-section (2).

The CHAIRMAN: I may help the hon. and gallant Member by telling him that I did not call that Amendment because I considered it out of order. Perhaps he may find that that applies to a good deal of what he was intending to say.

Sir W. BRASS: I am proposing to discuss the Clause as a whole. It states that certain roads shall be excluded from the Bill, namely, the roads within the county of London and any county borough. I understand, therefore, that the Clause means that certain roads which are in the county of London or in any county borough, or in any extension of the area of the county of London or of any county borough, shall not be included in the Bill. I want to discuss whether they should be in. If the Clause were deleted the county of London and the county boroughs would come in the Bill. I want to ask the Minister what he considers a trunk road ought to be. I think that it is a road that goes from one place to another regardless of whether it goes through a town or not. In making trunk roads we want to make main roads without bottlenecks here and there where they go through boroughs and other parts of the country, but real trunk roads where the traffic can flow smoothly from one part of the country to another. This Clause is the essence of the Bill, and if we exclude London and the county boroughs it will seriously affect what a trunk road ought to be.
I would ask my right hon. Friend to imagine what would happen if, say, he wanted to make a trunk road round Oxford and part of the road went through a portion of the borough of Oxford. Under this Bill the part which goes through the borough will have to come under the borough council and will not come under the Minister's jurisdiction at all. If the Minister decides to by-pass certain boroughs, he may have to say, "If I go the nearest way round I shall go into the fringe of the borough and when I do that I shall have to ask the borough to do the work, because I have not the power to do it." In other words, he will have to make a wider circle in order to go round certain boroughs than he would have to do if Clause 2 were not in the Bill. That is a serious matter. What will happen afterwards? If he has managed to make such a trunk road and has arranged with the local authority to make that part of the road which impinges on its area, he will not have control of that part of the road. He will have nothing to do with the lighting of it or anything else to do with it, but, according to this Clause, it will have to be maintained


by the local authority. Is that what we want? Is that what a trunk road ought to be? Ought not a trunk road to be one which should be maintained as a national road by the Minister of Transport whether it goes round a county borough or through it?
Why has the Minister decided to put this Clause in? I can understand that it was necessary to include London, because London is a very big place, and it would be difficult to draw a special line and say that certain roads were trunk roads which should come under the Minister of Transport. I cannot, however, see why the big main roads in the country which go through county boroughs all over the country, where they are often reduced to bottlenecks, should not come under the Minister of Transport who, under this Bill should form a proper trunk road system which extends from one end of the country to the other. Unless I can get a satisfactory answer from my right hon. Friend I propose to vote against the Clause.

5.11 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I hope that the Committee will consider carefully before consenting to the inclusion of this Clause. Sub section (2) is the test of the whole purpose which the Minister has in mind—

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that we are discussing the Clause and not the question of amending it. It is a question of passing the whole Clause or nothing.

Mr. DENMAN: May we be clear as to the effect of the removal of this Clause? By the Financial Resolution we authorise the expenditure of money only on trunk roads
not being roads within the administrative county of London or within any county borough.
If, therefore, this Clause is taken out, does it mean that the roads will be vested in the Minister without his having any power to expend any money whatever on them?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very difficult and interesting point. I am rather inclined to think that his question is one on which I ought not to give a Ruling now, or unless and until the Committee refuses to pass the

Clause. That would be the time to raise the point.

Captain STRICKLAND: I am grateful for that Ruling because it appears to me that the Committee have it within their power to reject the Clause even though it may mean the rejection of the whole Bill. It is not a question of adding anything to the expenditure; it may mean the complete rejection of the Bill unless the Minister is prepared to meet the grave objections that we have to this Clause. The Minister must have in his mind one of two things—either that he wants to improve the facilities, the layout, and the safety of the main trunk roads, or that he hopes to be able to relieve the poor county councils through which corridor roads run, concerning which they have to meet the expense, subject to the Road Fund grants, but from which they gain very little benefit. If it is the first, he must have in his mind that a trunk road is a corridor road which runs over considerable distances and that all such roads are linked up with each other as a continuous whole.
Under this Clause we shall have a repetition of the very trouble that we are supposed to be trying to clear out of the way. The object was that there should be continuity of system along the whole of our trunk roads, that the corridor traffic should have its passage facilitated by the similarity of road surface, similarity of lighting and similarity of layout all along the road. The actual name of the authority governing any particular section of a road does not appear to me to matter in the slightest. We want to secure the greatest safety on the roads, but if this Clause is passed that object will unquestionably be endangered. If the local authorities are in a position to accomplish this on the trunk roads which run through their particular territory there is no need for this Bill at all, because by additional road grants they could have been empowered to do exactly what they will have the power to do if this Bill is carried. If it does not mean the improvement of our road transport facilities this Clause cannot be regarded as anything else than mere window-dressing, a means of relieving the poorer local authorities of the burdens which they have carried unjustifiably for so many years in respect of this corridor traffic.
Take the title of the Bill, which itself has a bearing on this Clause. The title says it is a Bill to provide
that the Minister of Transport shall be the highway authority for the principal roads in Great Britain which constitute the national system of routes for through traffic.
Under this Clause we destroy the very title of the Bill. The Minister says he wants to control the through traffic which goes across our country north and south or east and west, and it is national through traffic with which we are dealing, but this Clause appears to have been drafted to enable the Minister to refuse to take control of even a, rural road through a borough. Many of the roads which I have in mind were expressly constructed as main trunk roads, not as roads belonging to this city or that, because they had very little to do with the internal transport of the city. They were constructed as by-pass roads to carry traffic around the city on its onward journey and to afford relief to the congestion from bottlenecks in the city itself.
Take my own city of Coventry, an old, walled city, with all that congestion of traffic which makes it almost impossible for two omnibuses to pass in the centre of the city. At great expense a wide by-pass road, the Fleckhampstead Highway, has been built to connect the Holyhead-Birmingham-London road. It bypasses the whole of the city, except as regards a portion of it which happens to pass over the fringes of the borough boundary—a fact which does not alter the character of the road, which is a trunk road, although it runs partly across the borough boundary. But the Minister is tying his hands by this Clause, so that if he wanted to take over Fleckhampstead Highway, which is a by-pass road, and has no concern with the local traffic of Coventry, except to relieve the bottleneck of the centre of the city, he could not do so. If we look at the First Schedule and trace the through main trunk roads there mentioned it will be found that in no fewer than 62 cases they run for part of their way across the boundaries of some city or borough—a borough which has extended its boundaries perhaps. Under this Clause, if a borough extends its boundaries in future over a by-pass trunk road which the Minister has constructed he will lose

his authority over that part of the road, and we shall lose that continuity of control which is so necessary in the interests of through traffic.
Coventry is only one example. There is the case of Oxford, quoted just now by my hon. Friend. There was a great outcry about Oxford, because it was said the colleges were endangered by the heavy traffic which passed through it shaking their foundations. A by-pass road was built round Oxford. That is a trunk road, one of the vital arteries of the country. If ever any road needed central control surely it is the Oxford by-pass road. There are other parts of the main trunk roads which are less important to through traffic than is the Oxford by-pass road. I can quote also the case of Exeter, another city of narrow, congested streets where there is to be a by-pass—or where it is already under construction—in order to relieve the traffic. What is the position going to be? Parts of the main arterial system of roads are not to be under the control of the Minister. Even if he wanted to take over those parts he could not do so without tabling a new Bill. We shall be fiddling about with the roads in future, lengths going into the scheme and other lengths coming out, and no one will ever know whether a particular section is a trunk road or not.
If this Bill was framed to relieve the poorer local authorities surely the grounds for acting were that they had by-pass roads running through their territory and it was unfair to expect them, who reaped no benefit from the roads, except in the relief of their own internal traffic, to continue to pay for their upkeep. It was a big step forward, and one which was welcomed I am sure, by the whole motoring fraternity, when the Minister proposed to take over at any rate some of our trunk roads. It was regarded as a first step towards a future in which we shall possibly have roads, such as are so badly needed in the country, on which there will be nothing but motor traffic, and on which we can secure safety for pedestrians and children and avoid the accidents which happen because of the mix-up of traffic on them under the present conditions. All those roads were to come under one central authority, and to have similar lighting, similar surfacing and similar precautions for the avoidance of accidents.
I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that so far as the by-pass roads which are main trunk roads are concerned he will not tie his hands. It may well be that he cannot to-night give the Committee an assurance that he can accept any particular schemes, but the roads to which I have referred must be included if we are to have a system of national corridor roads which will not only be helpful to industry but a valuable factor in the National Defence problem. I suggest that the Minister should give us an assurance that this Clause is not his last word with regard, at any rate, to these great by-pass roads. It is difficult to find words which exactly fit the situation, but I hope that where the Minister can come to an agreement with the boroughs he will do so, because they will gladly hand over these by-pass roads to him; there would not be much difficulty about it. Where he can come to an agreement with a borough council either in London or any of the county boroughs I hope he will use every endeavour to get these roads as part of the network which he is seeking to control. I have tried to put my views in as moderate terms as possible, because I wish to show that I am not taking up an obstructive attitude. My sympathies are with the idea, but I ask the Committee to consider very carefully before they allow this Clause to become part of the Bill. Like my hon. Friend, if there is a Division on the Clause I shall certainly vote against it, unless we have some assurance from the Minister that he will take in these by-pass roads which are so essential a part of our national trunk road system.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. BELLENGER: I wish to offer a few remarks on the points raised by the two hon. Members opposite, because I submit that they are points of substance. I should like to give an illustration of what will happen to a section of the Great North Road, one of the roads which it is proposed to take over. Part of that very important road passes through the town of Retford, in my constituency. I often travel along that road, and I must say that for a considerable distance it is excellent both as to surface and to width, but when it comes to the town of Retford it shrinks in places to a width which I should imagine does not exceed that between the two Front

Benches in this House. If we are to believe—and I think we must believe—in the right hon. Gentleman's highly desirable intention to make the trunk roads a pattern for the whole world, and if we are to believe that part of the idea of taking them over is connected with the defence of the country, surely the Minister will be stultifying himself if he is to take over the Great North Road only up to the point where it reaches Retford and is not to have the same control over it when it passes through the narrow bottleneck of that town. I am asked by an hon. Friend whether Retford is a county borough. Whether it is so or not, the fact remains that the Minister will have control of only a part of the Great North Road, and that is the point I want to make. Whether my illustration is the best illustration of the point or not, the fact remains that in certain boroughs there will be conditions similar to those I have described in the case of Retford, and I think the point raised is one of substance to which the Minister should apply his mind in order to give us a satisfactory answer.
There are many points in connection with the county borough parts of the roads which be will not take over which are of great substance—for example, the width of the roads, their lighting, the crossings with which the name of the Minister is associated, the stop-and-go lights. All these conditions affect the flow of traffic along these main arteries of the country, and the points raised by the hon. Member opposite are of such substance that it is necessary for the Minister to assure the Committee that even if he does not think it necessary to take over those roads he will have sufficient powers under this Bill to enable him to control them, that is, the roads which pass through the county boroughs.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. R. ACLAND: I and those associated with me on these benches regard this question very largely as a test question, as to whether the Minister means business by this Bill, or whether the Bill is simply an administrative change and of no further consequence. If the Minister means business, he must mean business in relation to by-passes. If so, he must also mean business in relation to bypasses in county boroughs. If we look at the map which has been given to us,


and at the City of Birmingham, it will be seen to be very easy to get to Birmingham but seemingly impossible to get through Birmingham, unless the Minister is to take this business of by-passing seriously in hand. This situation may be in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or in whatever more elevated station he may be, may be able to get with ease to all parts of the country. What applies to Birmingham, applies to all county boroughs which come upon the Minister's system of roads.
I believe that, on the merits of the question, the Minister will not have any answer to the argument which has been addressed to him from all parts of the House. We quite understand that the Minister does not want to take over Exeter High Street, which is well known to me, but surely the Minister must have, somewhere, some power to run by-passes through county boroughs. It is ridiculous for him to say that generally the bypasses will be outside the boundaries. Does that mean, just for want of putting in the power, that in some cases he will be forced to take his by-passes miles round, simply because he has neglected to take legislative power? The thing is absurd. The point which we are raising now is testing whether the Minister is in this matter a free agent, or whether he is tied up in his Financial Resolution. Is this another example of the legislation which the Government try to get through the House by drawing the Resolution so tightly that discussion by private Members is limited, and the Minister himself becomes involved in it
?
Will the Minister tell us, first whether he has the will to take power to drive bypasses in areas which are within the control of county boroughs, and then whether he has the power to make alterations to that effect in the Bill, within the terms of the Financial Resolution? If be tells us that the Financial Resolution binds him, and therefore automatically binds us, it seems to me that the time has come when private Members in all parts of the House ought to intimate to the Government that we will not tolerate much longer this system of drawing Financial Resolutions which bind not only private Members but Ministers as well. I understand, Sir Dennis, that you foreshadowed a Ruling in relation to the question which is now before us, but I cannot believe that there can be any provision under which the

Committee will be compelled to vote for the Clause. Although the effect of our voting against the Clause might be that the Financial Resolution would have to be redrafted and recommitted, that is an effect which I would welcome if it would show to the Government Front Bench that hon. Members in all parts will not tolerate Financial Resolutions which rule out discussion by private Members.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: Among the many anomalies of this very anomalous Bill, this anomaly seems to be the greatest. [Interruption.] Well, there may be an even greater one which the Committee will hear about. On the Second Reading, the Minister, with his accustomed eloquence and energy, said that the Bill would preserve the continuity of roads by doing away with different local authorities. When those who succeeded him in Debate pointed out that Clause 2 denied him the very claim which he put forward for his Bill, they were replied to by the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that very much of the traffic through the county boroughs must of necessity be of local value only and that for that reason he could not consider the point. Then he went on and said, in respect of many of the big towns and big cities like London, Liverpool and Manchester: "I cannot find where the trunk road is." At that stage the Minister got up and just gave him a nudge, and he went on to say:
My right hon. Friend reminds me that in very many cases—I think I might say the case of Wigan among others—it is our intention to build by-passes."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 19th November, 1936; col. 2057, Vol. 317.]
That is not the fact. The policy of the Minister of Transport is to order by-passes to go through the county borough and not round them, however unwilling the authorities are. I have the case of what used to be the capital of England. When they by-passed the City of York, the county borough asked for it to be outside their area, but the Ministry of Transport said: "No, you must go through your built-up residential area with your by-pass. That must be your concern." It is a very anomalous position that we should have this Clause presented at the present time. What the effect will be of taking out the Clause 1


do not know, but I would be quite prepared to vote for its exclusion and to see what we can do to repair the damage afterwards.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: There is a point which has, I think, been left out, in the speeches which have been made on this question, and that is in reference to road accidents. In a recent Debate on road accidents it was generally agreed that the majority of them could be attributed to a system of lighting and of surfacing which was not uniform. It was agreed that skidding was one of the greatest causes of road accidents, and all Members who were motorists agreed that if you came off one surface on to another surface, there was a very great possibility of a skid. If county boroughs are given full authority to look after their own little portions of road, what is the safeguard of the continuity of the main trunk roads, so far as lighting, surfacing and widths are concerned? That is a very serious point which I would like answered by the Minister, because of the great number of road deaths which happen every week in this country.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. MOREING: Before the Minister replies I would like to say that I am very sorry that I was unable to be present during the Second Reading Debate, on account of other activities. I would emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The Minister of Transport must be under some misapprehension as to the nature of traffic that goes through county boroughs. In winding up the Second Reading Debate, the Parliamentary Secretary said—I have the OFFICIAL REPORT in front of me:
In county boroughs the roads of necessity must be of very large local value, and very much of the traffic must be local."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1936; col. 2057, Vol. 317.]
In Preston, an enormous amount of traffic goes through the town, and I should think that a great deal more than 60 per cent. of it—probably 70 per cent.—north and south as well as east and west, is not traffic which originates in the town. A very heavy burden is put upon the local authorities which is not met by the Minister. I have seen a block of traffic extending one and a half miles

or two miles in length, owing to some temporary hitch in the middle of the town. Every bit of that traffic originated outside the boundaries of the borough. If we are to adopt a new system of dealing with the roads of this country and vest them in the Minister of Transport, Clause 2 should be deleted, to allow trunk roads, when they pass through county boroughs, to be treated as part of a national system.

Sir IRVING ALBERY: When the Minister replies, will he deal also with the question of the circular roads which are now being built, and which will be part of the trunk road system?

5.41 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I would refer for a moment to the history of the Bill. The county councils suddenly expressed, a few months ago, a desire for 100 per cent. grant, while retaining control. The Minister said: "I will pay for the trunk roads, but I will take control." He did not take the precaution, before he said that with regard to the county council areas, to ascertain the reaction of the county boroughs. He has a sort of agreement with the county councils, but members of the County Councils Association Executive are not quite sure that the county councils are in agreement on the Bill. We have a large number who say, "Yes" and a large number who say "No," but we also have a large number who say "Yes, but" and a larger number still of those who say "No, but." We are not quite sure how that works out for and against the Bill.
The county boroughs were not consulted, and I do not think anyone knows what their views are. Like Brer Rabbit, they have lain low and "said nuffin." It is clear from the arguments we have heard this afternoon that if we are to have a logical system of trunk roads, the Minister must be the authority within the county councils as well as outside. On the Second Reading Debate I raised the question of Doncaster. There is Doncaster, sprawling right across the Great North Road. If we are to have for Doncaster an effective by-pass which people will use because it will save time, it has not to be too wide. Everyone who has been engaged in the construction of bypass roads knows the difficulties that arise when the by-pass is taken either up steep


gradients or round such curves that users of the road decline to use that road and prefer to go along the old road. If the Minister is to make a logical scheme, he must be the authority throughout the country, including the county boroughs. Some of the county boroughs are as poor as any of the counties, but there are some very rich counties, whom we are to relieve of their responsibilities.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will not shut his ears to the pleas that have been made in, I think, every speech made this afternoon. If it is necessary, by some machinery of the House and possibly by negotiation with the county boroughs, to delay the Bill slightly, I hope that we shall get from the Bill a national system of trunk roads, over which the Minister will be the authority, and that he will become the highway authority in the counties and also in the county boroughs.

5.44. p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that my supporters have not been very conspicuous in anticipating the argument which it will now become my duty to deliver. That is always the case in the House of Commons. The most friendly act that can be performed towards a Minister is for his supporters to refrain from contributing to the discussion, and to leave it to the few critics to criticise in relation to the points which they wish to see altered. I am not going to allow the present atmosphere which has characterised our deliberations to be vitiated. I am going to appeal to the common sense and cooperation of all those hon. Gentlemen who have been responsible for this discus3ion, and particularly my two hon. Friends who initiated it.
What is the origin of this Bill? Ever since I became Minister of Transport, motoring associations and other associations have pressed upon me the argument that if only some central authority, myself or another, could take over the principal highways of the country, the routes would offer a more convenient means of passage for those who desired to use them. I was pressed again and again, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) a year or so ago moved a Motion in the House. A s the Bill now shows, however, the

Government only rejected my hon. Friend's proposal in the sense that we could not at the time accept the central authority which he then desired. Government in this country, as I said on the Second Reading, does not proceed by catastrophic and sensational reforms initiated and carried out by edict; it proceeds by persuasion, argument, agreement and co-operation; and when the County Councils Association themselves asked for proposals akin to those of this Bill, the Government at once responded—

Mr. EDE: Very distantly akin.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I agree, for they were calmly asking that the Government should pay 100 per cent., and that they should have complete and unfettered control; but they were asking for something like the proposals presented in this Bill, except that they wanted to remain in charge and wanted me to pay, while under the Bill, I shall pay, but I shall also be in charge. When they came to that conclusion they were, as has been said, very reluctant to give up the control of any roads at all; they wanted to retain control even of these roads; but, even though they might be conceived as consenting to this Bill, they were very anxious that we should not extend it to cover other roads, and it was in that spirit that the Bill was negotiated. We are not conceiving in the abstract what an ideal road system should be; we are trying to improve the existing system as best we can—a system long rooted in the past, under which the local authorities have enjoyed autonomy over their own roads, and that almost from prehistoric times. Having got what, the hon. Gentleman says, even now I am not entitled to call an agreement—having got some sort of understanding to take over a limited number of roads—surely it is a little ungracious for my hon. Friend to come along and say, "It is true that you are taking over 4,500 miles of roads in this country, but unless you add those roads which go through county boroughs we shall vote against this Bill." What user of the roads would benefit from an attitude like that? If this Clause is to be rejected, obviously the Bill falls to the ground, and I do not believe my hon. Friends will carry it as far as that.
I have narrated what the attitude of the county councils was. The municipal


corporations did not ask to be included in this Bill. It is not usually necessary to wait to ask associations for their views; as soon as they see proposals they offer them of their own accord, and from first to last they have never asked to be included in the Bill; and, while I have no authority for saying it, because the matter has not been the subject of negotiation, I can understand the reasons which would be likely to impel them to oppose their inclusion in this Bill. If, as a result of this Debate, public opinion is created which should cause them to do what the County Councils Association have done, and in the future come forward and ask to be included, we can consider their proposals just as we have considered those of the County Councils Association.

Captain STRICKLAND: Under this Bill, or in another Bill?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It would be quite impossible to include them now. The most profound and intricate financial arrangements would have to be made before it would be possible to include county boroughs in a scheme of this kind. We cannot just pass a Clause of the Act saying that everyone is in, without providing any machinery. The county boroughs, unlike the county councils, are block-granted; we give them a block sum of money for the maintenance of their roads, and they spend it exactly as they like. We have not the same control to-day in the county boroughs as we have in the county council areas. The reason why we block-grant the county boroughs and give them a limited sum to distribute as they wish is because the roads in towns are a maze. You cannot easily distinguish one road from another in a town as regards its importance; you cannot easily distinguish between the local importance and the through importance. I agree that in some cases that may be possible, but if you go into the centre of London, or if you go into the centre of Liverpool, you cannot tell what is local and what is through traffic by looking at the motor cars themselves. It is because of these difficulties that we block-grant.
How could we go inside a county borough— I do not mean every county borough; I except Preston if you like—how could we go inside a county borough

like Liverpool or Manchester and say, "As regards this piece of road between shops in your city we are the responsible authority, and we are going to control that road centrally because it is a through road?" How could we do that when they have their own staff, their own police force, their own method of looking at this matter in connection with a large number of other roads—lighting at the corners and so forth? It is all part of a much more involved proposal than this one, which is simple, and it is because of its simplicity that I have been able to introduce it with such rapidity after the county councils proposed it. I could not do the same in the boroughs. That would necessitate proposals far more closely reasoned and far more complicated than anything in any Clause of this Bill. I do not say I am incapable of seeing the logic of the, matter. Personally, I quite see the logic of it. My hon. Friend asked: "Why should you stop outside Binning-ham? Why should you stop outside Wigan, Preston or anywhere else?" We do not want to stop outside; we want to go wherever we can and wherever it is appropriate, and I agree that my remarks are not universal in their application. We want to build by-passes round, and in that way to get the through traffic out of the urban areas, which must be a desideratum. In describing what we desire to do with these through roads, I have said that we intend to have separate carriageways, cycle tracks, verges, and all these other modern amenities: but you could not get these in any county borough.

Mr. MacLAREN: Why not?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: How can you make a pathway in the middle of an overcrowded area—

Mr. MacLAREN: Why not

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I agree that, if you are a single-taxer, your imagination, perhaps, is stirred, and you can do almost anything. For my part, I must confess I am far more pedestrian in my outlook—

Mr. MacLAREN: It is the price of the land.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's argument, and I would ask him to do me the courtesy of


agreeing that he is aware of mine. I quite agree that in some halycon day under that system we might get this improvement, but those are not the financial arrangements which are here made, and you cannot transform, with any approach to practicality, the average county borough into a parkland settlement, making carriageways and so on as we are doing on through routes outside.

Mr. MacLAREN: They are doing it in other countries; why cannot it be done here?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not know where they are doing it in the centre of towns on any big scale—

Mr. MacLAREN: Of course, it is because the price of the land is too high. You made reflections on the single-taxer.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not making reflections on the single-taxer; I am asking him to be patient with me, and to believe that I understand his arguments; but they do not happen to apply in the case of this Bill—they are not part of the financial arrangements—

Mr. MacLAREN: I know that.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The unfortunate thing about my hon. Friend is that he is not only a single-taxer, but he is the single single-taxer in the House of Commons, and, therefore, he has not a majority for his proposals.

Mr. MacLAREN: That is why you are where you are.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That may be. I much regret it, but I want to leave the single-taxer out of the question.

Mr. MacLAREN: It was you who brought him in.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend interrupted me. I have indicated the distinction between the town and the country, and we could not exercise the same method of control or the same supervision in the towns, but wherever possible we desire to by-pass these areas.

Mr. TURTON: Will the by-passes be inside or outside the area of the county borough?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We desire that wherever possible the by-pass shall be

outside the area, but I have agreed that possibly that is not of universal application.

Mr. A. JENKINS: Supposing that there should be an extension of the county borough such that the by-pass then becomes included in the area, will the Minister lose control?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I shall then lose control. I have agreed that this may not be very logical, but it is not a procedure, that we can suddenly change by altering a Clause in the Bill. Anyone who is set this task as an administrator must work with the co-operation of the county boroughs. I have said that they have expressed no desire to come in, and have offered no objection to be excluded. If they like to take the course that the county councils took, and if they have proposals to make in the future, naturally those proposals will be considered in the same spirit in which any proposals coming from such a quarter would be considered.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: Would it be possible to withhold the block grant from the county boroughs if they do not conform to a certain standard in the little section of roads going through their boroughs?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is clearly possible, if a county borough does not keep its roads up to standard, to withhold the block grant. That, of course, would be a very drastic measure to take, and would disorganise the whole procedure, but we can exercise that power in cases where it is appropriate to do so. The answer, therefore, to my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative, that we could withhold the grant.

Sir W. BRASS: If a new by-pass goes through a county borough, would it be necessary for the Minister to get the sanction of the county borough on account of the fact that the portion of the by-pass going through the borough will be handed over to the county borough later on?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Anything that is in the area of a county borough is within their authority, and, therefore, nothing can be done without their consent. The position would be exactly as it is to-day in that respect. I have been quite frank with the Committee, and have told them that the county boroughs are excluded, but some people seem to


take that as meaning that all urban areas and non-county boroughs are excluded also. For instance, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) was under a misapprehension which I want to correct. He spoke of Retford as an area which he imagined would be taken out of the Great North Road, so that Retford would continue to administer its own particular piece of road, on the ground that it was a county borough. It is not a county borough, and the part of the road to which the hon. Member refers comes within the ambit of this Bill.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not quite see, on that showing, how the point about trunk roads running between roads and houses comes in. Surely the position of a fairly large non-county borough and a county borough as regards shops and amenities is just about the same.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is an obvious distinction between a place like Liverpool and a place like Retford. You can make a road at Retford, I should imagine, with far greater facility than you could make a system of trunk roads in Liverpool. My answer may not be completely logical, I admit, but it is none the less sincere. When the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) said that the Government in some sinister way are always drafting Financial Resolutions which impede discussion, he surely could not have had this Bill in mind. The Financial Resolution faced this issue quite frankly and left open what many Financial Resolutions might not have left open, the ability to move Amendments to the schedule of roads. I

see that for my sins about a thousand miles are to be offered me later on. So the Financial Resolution has not been so tightly drawn. It enabled us to take over through routes in the county areas and it was confined to that. That was the limit of our proposal. I ask the Committee to look at this proposition as a whole and to realise that the Government is making a great transformation in the practice that has endured for centuries and is taking over, however inadequate that may be, 4,500 miles of road which it proposes to improve to modern standards. I hope in view of that, because some Members might like to have seen more, they will not, at any rate, begrudge the credit that is due to the Government's present efforts, and will not further embarrass it in this discussion.

Mr. ACLAND: I have an Amendment in page 3, line 8, at the end, to insert:
except such roads or parts of roads specified in the First Schedule as the Minister and the council of the Metropolitan borough or county borough, as the case may be, in which the road or parts of roads are situated may agree to transfer to the Minister as trunk roads.
I understand that this Amendment has been ruled out of Order on the ground that it conflicts with the Financial Resolution and that a private Member is not entitled to move such an Amendment. Would the Minister consider whether he could move an Amendment such as that?

The CHAIRMAN: The Minister could not.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 108.

Division No. 21.]
AYES
[6.5 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bull, B. B.
Culverwell, C. T.


Albery, Sir Irving
Burghley, Lord
Davies, C. (Montgomery)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Davison, Sir W. H.


Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of 1 dn.)
Butler, R. A.
Dawson, Sir P.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cary, R. A.
Denville, Alfred


Assheton, R.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Donner, P. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.


Balniel, Lord
Channon. H.
Drewe, C.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Duggan, H. J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Dunglass, Lord


Bernays, R. H.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Blair, Sir R.
Clarke, F. E.
Ellis, Sir G.


Blindell, Sir J.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Elmley, Viscount


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Bracken, B.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Findlay, Sir E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Crooke, J. S.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Furness, S. N.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cross, R. H.
Ganzonl, Sir J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Crossley, A. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir J.




Gluckstein, L. H.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Granville, E. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Sandys, E. D.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McKle, J. H.
Scott, Lord William


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Selley, H. R.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Manningham Buller, Sir M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Markham, S. F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Guy, J. C. M.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hanbury, Sir C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Harbord, A.
Munro, P.
Spens, W. P.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hepworth, J.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Patrick, C. M.
Tate, Mavis C.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Penny, Sir G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Petherick, M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Holmes, J. S.
Pilkington, R
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Hopkinson, A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wardlaw-Mline, Sir J. S.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Procter, Major H. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rankin, R.
Wells, S. H.


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Williams. H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hume, Sir G. H
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Keeling, E. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Remer, J. R.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wragg, H.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rowlands, G.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Liddall, W. S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Young, A, S. L. (Partick)


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)



Llyod, G. W.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Salmon, Sir I.
Mr. James Stuart and Dr. Morris-


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Salt, E. W.
Jones.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)





NOES


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddi'sbro, W.)
Potts, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poptar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ridley, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Riley, B.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardie, G. D.
Ritson, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rowson, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Salter, Dr. A.


Barnes, A. J.
Jagger, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Batny, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bellenger, F.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
short, A.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, M. W.


Chater, D.
Lansbary, Rt. Hon. G.
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lawson, J. J.
Strause, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dagger, G.
Leach, W.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Dobble, W.
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Turton, R. H.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Foot, D. M.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Frarkel, D.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Westwood, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Milner, Major J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F.



Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(General provisions as to functions with respect to trunk roads.)

6.13 p.m.

Mr. KEELING: I beg to move, in page 5, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (6).
Section 9 of the 1909 Act contains a declaration that every road constructed by the Minister shall be a public highway and it would appear, if this provision is negatived by Sub-section (6), that roads constructed by the Minister will not be public highways. It is obviously desirable that roads constructed by the Minister should be public highways, and I have no doubt that there is some other way of ensuring this than by striking out Sub-section (6), but I should like to have an assurance from the Minister on the point.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance at once. The powers exercisable in the 1909 Act were part of a different code from that which applies to-day. Therefore, if we pass this Bill I shall have all the necessary powers in a modern form without having to rely on powers as far as trunk roads are concerned which were powers instituted before the Ribbon Development Act, for example, was passed. Therefore, I think the Amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, to leave out "or bridge."
As a road includes a bridge, the word "bridge" is not necessary, and this and the subsequent Amendments which I am proposing to this Sub-section are purely drafting to tidy up and make clear the language.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 24, leave out "the road passing over."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Modification of 25 and 26 Geo. 5. c. 47.)

6.16 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, to leave out "seven," and to insert "fourteen."
Under the Ribbon Development Act, 1935, the local authority before giving certain consent under that Act have to consult with the Minister and under this Bill it would be their duty to send particulars to the Minister and certain notices to the Applicant. The period within which this should be done is seven days, which the local authorities consider to be too short a period, particularly at holiday times and on other occasions. They suggest that fourteen days should be subsituted, and I hope that the Minister will give the Amendment favourable consideration.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I agree with what my hon. Friend has said, and we shall be glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 42, after "reference," to insert" to."
This is a drafting Amendment to correct a printer's error.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Delegation of road functions to local authorities.)

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, at the end, to insert:
"and the councils by whom such functions are discharged at the commencement of this Act."
I understand that at a conference held this month the view was held and the assurance given that the repair of the roads during the preliminary period of two years would be carried out by the same highway authority as at present, and if the Minister will confirm that view, I shall be very glad to withdraw the Amendment.

Captain HUDSON: Proviso (a) of Sub-section (4) requires that the Minister shall consult
with such associations as appear to the Minister to represent the councils to whom functions to be assigned thereunder.
Those words, I am informed, mean precisely the same as those which my hon. and gallant Friend proposes to insert. The Minister intends to consult the


County Council's Association of England, Wales and Scotland, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Non-County Boroughs Association and the Urban District Councils Association.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Miscellaneous provisions as to functions in connection with trunk roads.)

6.20 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to move, in page 10, leave out Sub-section (3).
The proviso appears to limit the obligation of maintenance and repair to bridge approaches, although it is not clear that the language is sufficient to require the Minister to repair the bridge. Where a side road is constructed over trunk roads further doubts exist. As the Minister is aware, there are certain parallels with the obligations that are put upon railway companies for the repair of bridges and approaches. Will the Minister be good enough to state his intentions with regard to the proviso, as there is a certain amount of apprehension in the minds of local authorities charged will this duty?

6.21 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should be very sorry to see the extinction of this part of the Bill, which enables junctions to be built. This is part of the Clause which enables us to build a bridge over the road or underneath the road. If that power is exercised we are responsible for the cost and for the maintenance of the portion of the road which is a trunk road. The railway company hitherto has been responsible for its own approach to the road, and I do not think that any objection could be taken to such a course. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to railway undertakings, but, of course, they are profit-earning undertakings. The State is going to construct something at the public expense which is a definite amenity and advantage, and the county council would only be left, by agreement,

with bearing its share of the cost as far as the maintenance of the approach roads are concerned.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.23 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, after "that," to insert:
(a) The Minister shall not construct any such bridge, connection or approach except after consultation with the council of the county in which the road across the trunk road is situated, and, where that road is vested in some other council, also with that council; and (b).
This Clause gives power to the Minister for the making of bridges either over or under a trunk road to carry a road which is in existence and which will remain the responsibility of the local authority. This Amendment is to ensure that the Minister will consult with the local authorities before he takes action in making a road over a particular bridge. We think that the question of the need for the bridge, the method of constructing the approach to the road, and also the communications between the existing road and the new trunk road are all points upon which the local authorities consider that they should have the right of being approached and consulted by the Minister. The Amendment has been put down with that object.

Captain HUDSON: As my hon. Friend has said, the Amendment is designed to secure that before the Minister constructs a new bridge he shall consult the county council or highway authority, and in these circumstances we will accept it.
Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I understand that the hon. Member has some further consequential Amendments.

Sir J. LAMB: They are consequential upon the last Amendment.
Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 19, leave out "highway authority for," and insert council in whom."
In line 20, after the second "road," insert "is vested and shall be deemed to be part of that road."
In line 20 leave out "authority," and insert "council."—[Sir J. Lamb.]

6.26 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I beg to move, in page 10, line 23, to leave out Sub-section (4).
I shall be glad if the Minister can give some explanation of the form in which he seeks to take these powers. Prior to the Road Traffic Act, 1934, there was no power given to the county council to engage in the lighting of the highways. Although they were the highway authority they were not the lighting authority. That gave rise to a good many anomalies and a considerable amount of ill-feeling as between some county councils and the local lighting authorities who rather objected to the county council bringing a new road through their rural parish and then expecting the rural parish to pay for the lighting. Anyone who has had experience of trying to persuade a rural parish at a parish meeting to adopt the lighting of the roads will imagine the kind of reception the county council had on those occasions. Section 23 was inserted in the Act of 1924 in order to give the county council power in certain circumstances to pay for the lighting of the roads. If I read Sub-section (1) of that Section it will give the Committee some idea of the limitations and provisos which were inserted so as to make quite sure that the county council consulted local opinion before it acted:
Notwithstanding the powers conferred upon the councils of non-county boroughs and urban and rural districts … the council of a county may, if they consider that any county road or part thereof should he illuminated or better illuminated, enter into and carry into effect an agreement for the supply for that purpose of gas, electricity, or other means of illumination, with the road lighting authority, or with any other authority or person having power in that behalf, and may provide such lamps, lamp-posts, and other materials and apparatus as they may think necessary for the purposes of this section.
The Minister has considerably shortened that, and in the form now in the Bill he does not appear to have had any regard to this Sub-section, which says:
Before exercising the power conferred on them by this section, a county council shall give notice to the road lighting authority specifying the road, or part of a road, which in the opinion of the county council should be illuminated or better illuminated and any particular requirement in that behalf.
If it were right to impose these steps upon a county council before they could

proceed to light a highway, the Committee is entitled to know why, when the Minister now proposes to take over these duties, he should be able to act whether he gets the consent or not of a local lighting authority. If a parish council is so proud of its system of lighting that it would rather carry it on itself than at the expense of the Minister, I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should curb local patriotism to that extent. I hope the Minister will have some regard to local feeling in these matters. My own view is that many of our rural roads are better left unlit. When you are going through a town or a. village I agree that the Minister may very well decide that the road ought to be better lighted, but there are many villages which are so poor as to be unable to afford the better type of illumination. The Minister has ample powers to make recalcitrant electricity authorities bring their mains along these roads, but where the road is constructed through what may be a sweep of farming land it may be better to leave the road unilluminated. The Minister has adopted a form of words different from those in the Act of 1934, and I think the Committee should have some explanation.

Mr. DENMAN: May I express a hope that the Minister will pay attention to what the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said on the two points, first, that local opinion should be regarded in the lighting of these roads, and, secondly, that the larger rural stretches should be left dark? We all agree that the ideal from the point of view of road safety is that a road should be very well lighted or not at all, and I trust that is the combination which, in fact, the Minister will adopt.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I referred to the question of lighting on the Second Reading of the Bill and the Parliamentary Secretary said that it was a matter which would be dealt with from time to time. He was not very definite. There are certain sections of our roads which should be tackled at once. There is a section on what is called the East Lancashire Road, the new road. At each end the road is lit by the municipalities, but there are from 20 to 23 miles between which have not been tackled at all. The various local authorities have not been


able to come to any agreement and users of the road are at once plunged into darkness. It is no man's land. I want to know what steps will be taken in regard to this stretch of road. Will the authorities make the approach or will the Department make an inspection of the road and determine what wants doing? Unless the Minister is determined to have these roads lit quickly we shall have to wait a long time before the matter is settled, because so far the people whose duty it is have neglected it. Probably it has been a matter of expense. I contend that the lighting arrangements should have been made when the road was being made. It would have saved a lot of expense now. Previously the right hon. Gentleman has told me that he was not in charge, he said that he wan not the authority, but would use what influence he had with the Lancashire County Council to get them to see the wisdom of having this road lit. Now, the right hon. Gentleman is to be the authority and I warn him that he will get no rest from me until he attends to this matter. In my opinion the accident rate would be brought down if the lighting of our roads were taken under control and dealt with.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to speak chiefly about the roads in Scotland. Nothing has so far been said about the system of lighting which should be adopted, and, in my opinion, that is a matter which should receive immediate and close consideration. There are various methods by which one can test which is the best system of lighting. You may have a light in the middle of the street, overhung, or you may have a light coming from the sides. When you pass from one system of lighting to the other there is an immediate change on the eye, and in my opinion it is the cause of many accidents. I should like to know what system is in the minds of the technicians of the Department. Are they thinking of a system of road lighting coming from the middle of the road, of something in the nature of flood lighting in the direction in which the car is travelling, or are they thinking of something in the nature of what is called a direct upward light for a certain distance in order to get the eye accustomed to the change from lights in the towns to the new conditions which will

prevail in rural areas? This is a matter which will have to be dealt with accurately if you want to avoid accidents. In Scotland we are suffering from the Electricity Act of 1926. We have great wires travelling all over our best main roads but there is no possibility of our having a good system of lighting unless the Minister is prepared to face the building of sub-stations, which is going to be a big expenditure. I realise that we are discussing military roads. Everything said on the Bill has shown that military considerations come into the matter. There is the question of having to darken down quickly, in which case you would have to get a system of switches which would be interchangeable. All these things have to be considered and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether the Department has considered them.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has put forward two points which were reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). It is true that there is an abridgment of the wording in this Sub-section as compared with the Sub-section in the Act of 1934. The Act of 1934 gave the county council power to enter into agreements with lighting authorities, and we take a similar power here as we are becoming the highway authority. It is true that in the 1934 Act the county council is enjoined to have regard to local opinion. We have not put those words in here, but I was asked to give an assurance that we would not act in defiance of local opinion except in very good cases. I can give that assurance. It is our intention to operate the Bill with the co-operation of local authorities, indeed, that we intend to work with and where possible through local authorities who are accustomed to exercising this power. That will mean that local opinion is regarded, and if it is desirable that particular stretches of road for some particular reason should not he lit it will be possible to have regard to any representation made in that sense.
The speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) was in a somewhat different tone. He said that he was going to give me no rest. I hope there will be no cause for him to keep awake to keep me awake. I hope his desires will


be met. It is our intention to achieve the best possible standard of lighting in all appropriate places by agreement with the appropriate authority. I hope there will be an improvement not only generally but in the particular direction in which he is interested, and in regard to which he has pressed me in this House. I know that I have been able to disclaim responsibility. I shall not be able to do so in the future and, therefore, it will be a greater inducement to me to do my best to obtain agreement in regard to that matter.
The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) was interested in the system of lighting, a subject on which he shed much illumination and on which I am completely in the dark; but because of my ignorance, a committee of experts was appointed to inquire into and report upon the best system of lighting. That Committee is now in session, as the hon. Member knows, and its recommendations will naturally have a great influence on the future standard of lighting on the roads. I would not like to be dogmatic as to which is the best system, and even if I knew, I would not dare to say, because there are so many rival claims made on behalf of rival forms of lighting. I shall take the very best advice. I hope I have discharged my duty in answering the questions that were put to me.

Mr. EDE: In view of the assurances given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.47 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: I beg to move, in page 11, line 15, after the second "of," to insert "such construction or improvement or in respect of."
The following Amendment, in page 11, line 16, has the same object as the one which I have moved, and I would like to speak on both of them. The object of the Amendments is to extend the powers of local authorities to enable them to make a contribution towards the expenditure which eventually will be incurred. The Sub-section as it stands limits their expenditure to
improvements to the amenities of land abutting on or adjacent to the road.
The county councils wish to have that power extended so as to enable them to

make a contribution not for the amenities of the land only, but for the construction and improvement of the road. County councils do not usually want power to increase their contribution to the Ministry's expenditure, but the object in the present case is the following. It is conceivable that a road might pass through a village or a built-up area, and that the Minister might consider that a very much better way to deal with the matter would be to construct a by-pass. That by-pass might be delayed for some considerable time, and during that period the Ministry would confine itself purely to the construction and maintenance of the existing road. That would naturally prevent the local authority, to which the road would be re-transferred after the by-pass had been made, from making any improvements to the road in the meantime. We think that would be a hardship to the users of the road in that particular place, and would cause unreasonable and unnecessary delay. The county councils think that if they had the power to contribute to the expenses incurred while the Ministry was responsible for the roads, it would facilitate matters very much, to the general advantage of the public.

6.50 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: As the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) said, it is not often that the county councils ask for power to contribute towards the Ministry's expenses, and I think the hon. Member has put forward very clearly the reasons for which they ask for that power in this case. Unless this Amendment were accepted, the effect of the Clause would be that the county, having no power to contribute, might find that some village improvement would be delayed until the by-pass had been constructed and the road had reverted to the former highway authority. I would point out to the Committee that the power to contribute is purely optional, and in those circumstances I am very pleased to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 16, after "amenities," insert "of the road or."—[Sir J. Lamb.]
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.52 p.m.

Mr. BELLENGER: I rise to ask whether it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to shed a little more illumination on Sub-section (9) of this Clause. Under that Sub-section, it would appear that the Minister has power to contribute to a drainage board part of the expenses winch the board would be called upon to incur in connection with the improvement of a trunk road. I would like to know what that means in respect of the instructions to the drainage board to carry out these improvements. Does it mean that the Minister may call upon a drainage board to carry out certain improvements in order to protect or improve trunk roads, and if so, will the board be called upon to incur expenditure which may be heavy and to which the Minister will only contribute in part? In my own constituency—and I have no doubt in certain other constituencies—the present drainage rate is very high, and it bears hardly on a certain section of the corn-inanity to pay that rate for what I may call the legitimate purposes under the Drainage Acts. If they are to be called upon by the Minister to incur heavy expenditure for the purposes of improving or buttressing the trunk roads, I think the Minister should bear the whole cost of those improvements, and not throw part of the expense on to the drainage boards by virtue of the fact that under this Sub-section he proposes only to contribute a certain part.

6.53 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I would like to raise again a point to which I referred on Clause 1. At a certain date the Minister will take over from local authorities and others the roads, buildings, bridges, cut-off corners, and so on. It is possible that there are many laws governing this subject, and some cases have to be published in the Press. There have been some cases of public decisions. Speaking generally, I think that at the present time there would be pretty wide consultation before any alteration could be made. The right hon. Gentleman has already said, with reference to an Amendment to delete Sub-section (3), and in the case of lighting, that he would consult with anybody likely to be affected. There is, however, a new point, and it is that after this Bill is passed there will be no appeal. The Minister

will be his own court of law. I understand that in the past, if it was considered that justice was not done, whether in the case of a private individual or a local authority, there was in practically every case an appeal to the Minister. I would like to know whether the Minister is prepared to give an assurance that, as far as possible, he will continue on the old line of general consultation with everybody concerned, and whether he will give an indication that there will be a certain amount of latitude in the case, where there is no appeal?

6.55 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) asked a question concerning Sub-section (9). The words in that Sub-section are taken from Section 32 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, which gives similar power to a local authority. We have simply taken the same powers as the local authorities now enjoy of contributing, as we think fit, towards the expenses of the boards in the execution or maintenance of works which will conduce to the better enjoyment of the trunk road. No obligation is placed upon either side. It is left as a matter of arrangement. We take powers which are in every way analogous to those now possessed by the local authorities, and we shall exercise them in exactly the same manner.

Mr. BELLENGER: Might I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the Land Drainage Act was passed the power to take over the whole of the 4,500 miles of trunk roads was not vested in the Minister, and possibly the local authorities might have used this power which the Minister is now going to take in a much more lenient manner towards the drainage authorities. I hope the Minister does not envisage any large demand on the drainage authorities.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir. I think everybody will be better off as the result of the passage of this Bill, and I do not think the drainage authorities fear dealing with the Ministry. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage)—I do not know that he was referring to any particular Sub-section — asked me generally whether, when I exercise, as supreme authority, the function previously exercised by highway authorities, over whom I had some supervision by


virtue of the fact that I was responsible for the grant, I would exercise those functions on the old lines, after proceeding by agreement, rather than by summarily refusing to consider what was put before me. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I fully recognise that the object of this Bill is to provide the country with better trunk roads than it now possesses. Everything will be done to secure greater facilities for traffic, having due regard to the wishes of the local inhabitants. I do not intend to proceed callously or carelessly—and I am sure my successors will not—in the discharge of this important function which I hope the Committee is about to entrust to me.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Transfer of Property and Liabilities.)

6.38 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 11, line 34, after "road," to insert:
or in any local authority for the purposes of functions in relation to the road under any of the enactments mentioned in Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act.
The introduction of this form of words is proposed in order that we may take over the speed-limit signs and the markings of pedestrian crossings. Clause 7 as at present drafted transfers to the Minister:
The property which immediately before the date on which the road became a trunk road was vested in the former highway authority for the purposes of their functions in relation to the road.
The imposition of the speed limit under Section 1 of the 1934 Act and the preparation of the scheme for pedestrian crossings, under Section 18 of the Act, are functions of local as opposed to highway authorities. It is proposed that on trunk roads these functions should be transferred to the Minister, and it is important therefore that he should also acquire at the same time any property in speed-limit signs and markings for pedestrian crossings. This Amendment and a number of consequential Amendments to this Clause and to the Fifth Schedule are designed to make certain that these properties are transferred to the Minister. They are the only property which can be vested in a local authority

for the purposes of functions relating to the road under any of the Acts mentioned in Part I of the Third Schedule.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 11, line 38, after the first "the," insert "former highway."
In page 12, line 4, leave out the second "the," and insert "any such." — [Captain Hudson.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call the next Amendment I ought to point out that none of the Amendments which deal with this question of loans are in themselves complete. It must be obvious that if the unexpended part of a loan is to be transferred to the Minister then also the liability should be transferred. In these Amendments some hon. Members seek to transfer the benefit, and some to transfer the liability. It seems to me difficult to keep these discussions separate, and I suggest that it would be for the general convenience of the Committee if we took a general discussion on this subject on the Amendment in the name of the right. hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. James Brown).

7.2 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in page 12, line 6, to leave out from "road," to "and," in line 7.
This Amendment seeks to do away with an obvious injustice. Certain councils may have entered on large capital expenditure and also on loans for road works, whereas neighbouring towns may not have been so active and may not have spent more than a small part of what the others are spending. If this Clause goes through as it is, it means that the community that has been trying to do its best is to be penalised for its energy, as represented in the capital and loans that should be taken over. The Scottish Association of County Councils has taken up this subject very keenly, and this afternoon I received the following telegram:
County councils in Scotland heartily support your Amendment to Clause 7.
These councils are well aware of all the difficulties connected with roads, and their voice should not be lightly turned aside. They are the people with the practical contact and experience. It would be hard if this Clause should remain as it stands because every one


which has set out to do something useful would be made to feel that it did not pay. The whole of this Clause for the transfer of property and liabilities seems to act in a one-sided way. There is a phrase "except loans and loan charges." If they have been entered into honestly for the purpose of carrying out a public service, why should the community which has done it be penalised and others that have not done their bit be allowed to go scot free? I hope the Minister will be able to shed some light on this, especially in relation to the Scottish county councils. They have been active in every way in assisting towards getting not only better roads, but a better organisation of traffic, and I hope the Minister will see that it is necessary to keep good faith with the county councils which are earnest in their work.

7.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: If this goes through without amendment, as far as one can tell in the case of county councils the whole or the greater part of the liability for providing loans and sinking funds will fall on them, and it will appear that local authorities will be responsible for the discharge of loans without any chance of reimbursement from the Ministry. Some local authorities may pay for the whole of their roads by means of long-term credit. In other cases the loans may have lapsed, or have been taken over by other authorities, and the roads may be paid for. In the case of other authorities there may be loans outstanding, and they will be paying for something which they no longer possess. If the Minister takes over the roads he should also take over any part of the road that has not been paid for because the loans are outstanding. It is a fair question to ask him what he proposes to do with these eases. There will be a great deal of feeling on the part of ratepayers if they are to continue paying for trunk roads over which they no longer have any control.

7.9 p. m.

Mr. WESTWOOD: There are three types of local authorities dealing not only with roads but with all our public services. There is the authority that carries through its programme on its current revenue; there is the other type which borrows; and there is the third

type which is altogether reactionary, where the roads are disreputable, and which has not used money out of current income nor yet has borrowed. We are pleading at the moment for that middle type of authority that has borrowed. The Bill does not propose to take over the loan charges which attach to the trunk roads. The county councils in Scotland are strongly objecting to the loan charges being left with them when they will have no control over these trunk roads. I understand this will be the first occasion when responsibility has been taken over by one authority from another and it has not taken over the loan charges or financial obligations of that authority. Under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, the county councils were forced to take over duties attaching to roads in small burghs. They were compelled, because of changes in local government, to accept responsibility not only for the roads, but for the capital incurred in making them and for the loan charges still attaching to the unpaid part of the capital debt.
If the Minister is not to assume liability for such debts for trunk roads the result will be that in certain cases the county councils will be left with a debt which they did not incur and which attaches to something that they have only administered for a few years. The result will be that, although they have administered these loans for only a small number of years, the debts will not be passed on to the Minister as they were passed on to the county councils by the 1929 Act. That means that there will be a feeling of injustice among the county councils. I think it wise that the good will of those responsible for administration should be kept. The county councils have circulated every Scottish Member, I think, in support of the line taken by hon. Members who have put down this Amendment. They ask that in equity, and on the precedent of the 1929 Act, the Minister should assume responsibility for the loan charges attaching to these roads. It would be contrary to all precedent for a transferee authority to take over the property of a transferring authority and at the same time not to become responsible for all the liabilities of that authority. I have been for 28 years engaged in Scottish local government work, and in all that time there has never been a change when property has been


transferred to another authority without the liability being transferred also. That is all we are asking in this case.
We are quite willing to get rid of this problem and we congratulate the Minister on doing something that is right in the way of taking over trunk roads and making them national highways. It is something we have advocated for many years and it is rather strange that it should be a Tory Government which should have to accept a Socialistic policy so far as trunk road charges are concerned. We are quite anxious to get rid of the problem and we are anxious to get rid of the responsibility attached to the problem. I have found the Minister so amenable to reason in other directions that I hope he will be equally amenable to reason so far as this Amendment is concerned. Under the 1929 Act county councils were forced to undertake a liability for a debt attached to roads when they took them over from the town councils, and the County Councils Association of Scotland has asked me to speak on its behalf on this occasion. I hope the Minister will be able favourably to consider this Amendment even if it is not in the appropriate words. There are some difficulties, as pointed out by the Chairman, but if the principle is accepted we are quite well satisfied, and I have pleasure in supporting what has already been said so far as the particular Amendment is concerned.

7.16 p.m.

Sir J. LAM B: The number of Amendments shows that the widespread feeling on the matter is not confined to Scotland, to England, or to any one section but to the whole country; and I would like to repeat that if the Minister can accept any of these, if he will get up and say he accepts the principle that we are advocating although not the particular words, we do not mind how it is done. But as it stands at present undoubtedly the Clause is going to hit some of the poorer counties very hard. Some of the counties have been progressive and some have suffered much more than others because they are internal counties through which a great deal of traffic, not their own, passes. Consequently the expenditure upon the road maintenance has been heavy and the poorer county which has done its duty in the past has had to take up loans for the work to be done.

Now they will be saddled with the loans, although not saddled with the responsibility and this really because they have done their duty in the past. But the poorer counties who have said simply, "No, we will not do anything at all," have not taken up any loan, and now they are rather in the position of saying, "We did not make any loans and now the Minister is coming along to do the work." That is hard and unjust, because the Minister is not proposing to take over all the roads.
There are quite a number of Amendments later on which I must not refer to now. They ask the Minister to take over more roads, and personally I have a request that he should include another road in my county in the Schedule. But what is going to happen to those roads which he is leaving and which really ought to be trunk roads? The local authorities in future will say, "Well, we will not do anything to those roads because obviously they ought to be main roads, and if we do anything now and take up loans we shall not be paid, so we had better leave them alone." It will be an inducement to say that they will not do anything on roads likely to be taken over by the Minister later on. I do not think the matter is such a big matter, from the financial point of view, as some might imagine. I believe the outstanding loans are £2,500,000. The annual loan charges would be about £150,000, and that £150,000 is small in comparison with the large sums which I hope my right hon. Friend will spend in this matter. He is better able to pay it than these poor councils, and I plead with him to look upon it from that point of view.
If these county councils are still saddled with the paying of loan charges it will reduce the amount of money they would legitimately wish to spend on other roads in their charge. That point was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage). The balance of the time for which these loans were taken up is not altogether exhausted, and consequently they feel, in some cases where they have taken up loans to do work only recently done, that the Minister is to come along and take advantage of the work for which the county is still expected to pay. When I raised this matter on the Second Reading the Minister in reply—


I had referred to the alteration of principles which was adopted, I think universally in some cases but particularly in my own memory in the 1929 Act when tie county councils took over the roads from the rural district council—there they had to take over the loan charges—in reply to me the Minister said that that w as simply transferring from one pocket to another; but I think he has made a mistake for the reason that there were County districts which had loan charges and other county districts in the county which had no loan charges. The position was the same as now between county and county, except that then it was between county and county district. I cannot see why another principle from that enforced upon the county on a previous occasion has been adopted. I want to refer to the kindness of the Committee in accepting another Amendment I have put down, and I think it would be very nice if the Minister would not break the continuity of that pleasant experience to me but would say that, if not able to accept the Amendment in the words on the Paper, the principle which we are advocating shall be adopted by him and that he will include it in the Bill.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. McKIE: I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) has said. I do not always find myself in agreement with Members who represent Scottish constituencies and sit above the Gangway, but on this occasion I am on their side. Representing a constituency which has within it two county councils which I think can be classified under the terms used by my hon. Friend above the Gangway as poor county councils, I can claim to know a little of what they feel under the proposal of Clause 7 of the Bill. I hope, as my hon. Friend above the Gangway has just said, that, if the Minister cannot accept these specific Amendments, he will at all events give us the assurance that he accepts the principle. Only this afternoon when I returned to the House I had a very strong representation from one of the county councils within my constituency on this very point. The Amendment will receive whole-hearted support from every other poor county council in Scotland.
In a letter received this afternoon there are interesting figures given with regard

to one county council as affected by the Measure. Two small burghs are instanced and, speaking from memory, one has a population of 3,500 and the other a population of 2,000. Under the present law and under the Act repeatedly referred to, the county council had to take over from the burgh of 3,500 inhabitants a debt of £10,867 and from the small and ancient burgh of 2,000 inhabitants a debt of £2,450. I hope my right hon. Friend will perceive from these figures how one small county council representing a poor rateable area in Scotland is affected, and I hope he will see his way to give the Committee an assurance that he does at all events accept the principle of all these Amendments, and that the county councils are not to be penalised. I think the word "penalized" is rather too strong a word, as the local authorities are going to be relieved of a great deal of their burdens, but it seems inconsistent to say that the maintenance of trunk roads is to be a national concern and at the same time a poor local authority is to be saddled with a continuation of those road charges.
Incidentally it is not going to make for the increasing smooth working between county councils and small urban authorities. I realise this is not essentially a Scottish question, as my hon. Friend above the Gangway said, but those of us who represent Scottish constituencies know that great friction has existed ever since the passing of the 1929 Local Government Act. We want to make things work more smoothly in future, and I hope if my right hon. Friend accepts the principle of the Amendment we shall see a great deal done towards getting smooth working between county councils and boroughs with regard to local administration. The Member for Stirling and Falkirk seemed rather aggrieved that the Tories were carrying out a Socialistic Measure, but I was pleased. He is naturally a little disappointed at being on the opposite benches, but I might point out that he cannot claim this as a purely Socialistic Measure, for the principle involved in this Bill is accepted by all parties in the State to-day. I will put it in this way: The general public would prefer to see legislation like this by those who came into office at the last election and the one before it, in whom the electorate showed greater confidence than in the hon. Gentlemen.

7.24 p.m.

Captain SHAW: I wish to add my voice to the appeal that has been made to the Minister to accept the principle that has been enunciated. When the Minister raised the question, he indicated that he was going to step into the shoes of the local authority, but now he is going to take over the rights and only partly going to step into the shoes. He is going to shuffle along. We want him to take over the liability attaching to the roads also. We think it is the right thing to do. I hope he will in this case find that his first thoughts were best and that he can meet us in the matter. I think that all the roads should be taken over, but I feel more strongly still regarding a road attaching to a bridge in my own constituency—a bridge that was put across the estuary of the Esk in 1926 under a special Act, the Montrose Bridge Order Confirmation Act. I think that the liability for loans on that bridge, which have fallen on to the County Council of Angus, should be taken over, because they are in a very particular case.
That bridge was built under the 1926 Act and cost —90,000. The Minister gave a grant of —60,000 but the other —30,000 had to be raised by the County Council of Angus to the extent of 50 per cent. while the other 50 per cent. was raised by the County Council of Montrose; but under the 1929 Act, which repealed that Act, the whole of that liability now falls upon the County Council of Angus, and in an extraordinary manner the largest burgh in the county of Angus, namely, Arbroath, escapes liability altogether. I do not know whether the Minister is going to meet us in the matter of this Amendment, but if he is not able to take over the loans I hope that when he comes to consider the question of grants he will consider the special case of Angus in respect of the bridge over the Esk.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. QUIBELL: I also urge the Minister to accept this Amendment. Under the Bill as it stands, the more loyal a local authority has been in carrying out works in time of need, the worse off they are going to be under these proposals. It is not only the county councils who will be penalised. Some urban districts have carried out works of a very extensive character. In small urban districts works costing up to something like £80,000 have been carried out and those authorities,

when the trunk roads have been taken over, will be left with a considerable burden on the local ratepayers unless something can be done for them. I presume that, as far as the Minister is concerned, there will be no grants in aid of the repayment of the interest charges due on outstanding loans. I think the Amendment only proposes common justice to the local authorities, especially to those who at a time of distress in this country, were most loyal; who pledged their credit and incurred debts which will, in some cases, hang round their necks for 40 or 50 years, in order to meet what was at that time regarded as a crisis in the country's history.
The Minister ought to be a little generous to those authorities and take over the liability for outstanding loans as well as the roads. I am sure that Members on all sides in the Committee would wish him to do so. As far as the money is concerned, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, had it not been for the raiding activities of Chancellors of the Exchequer the probability is that the Road Fund would have been in a position to meet this liability without incurring a relatively great burden. The road users, after all, created that Fund, and, in view of what has happened in connection with it, I think the Minister ought to be a little generous on this occasion. I think it is now his turn to do something and that he ought to take over this liability which will entail such a heavy burden on some of the small urban districts in this country.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I hope the Minister will resist this united effort by Scotland and Lincolnshire. There is another point of view besides that which has been put forward by certain hon. Members. Why should the wise virgins pay for the misdeeds of the foolish virgins? The authorities who paid for these roads out of revenue and whose rates have gone up on account of the roads, have been just as loyal in carrying out works in time of depression as any others. They did so at the time when a Socialist Government was continually spending in 1931. The other people, the foolish virgins, have been borrowing, keeping their rates low and putting matters off


in the hope that the Minister would select their roads as trunk roads and take over all their liability.

Mr. MATHERS: Is it not the case that, finally, the wise virgins will prove to be those who did nothing at all and who appeared at the time to be completely neglectful of the ordinary wisdom of providing better roads?

Sir J. LAMB: The hon. Member does not say whether the virgins in this case were rich or poor. Some of them were rich and some were poor.

Mr. TURTON: If I remember aright there is no reference to poverty or riches in the parable. As regards the point of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) I do not think it is germane to the issue. One presumes that all the county councils are carrying out their obligations. If they are not, it is the Minister's duty to see that they do so. What we are considering here is the fact that some councils have spent out of loans and some out of revenue. Hon. Members argue that those who have spent out of revenue should pay for those who have put it all on loans.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am sure that the ion. Member does not desire to misrepresent the position. I was referring not to what happened under the Socialist administration in 1931, nor in the alleged financial crisis of that time, but to what happened under the Conservative Local Government Act of 1929 which compelled county councils to take over the liabilities of small burghs.

Mr. TURTON: I agree, and if the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) had waited, I was going to say that the one exception was his speech. He kept to a very narrow point, but a very good point as to the effect of the Local Government Act of 1929. I would ask the Minister to consider that matter. The county councils were, of course, to take over the duties of the rural district councils. That was in England, but, of course, in Scotland it has to be translated into different language which I do not attempt. In England the county councils, as I say, took over the duties of the rural district councils, willy nilly. Now, when the Minister is about to take over these other matters, there does seem to be some justice in the case in that particular

respect, but I hope that, on the broao main question of loans generally, the Minister will be as adamant as he was against the argument which I put forward on Clause 2. I say so, all the more sincerely, since many of us find, when we look at the map which is displayed in the tearoom, that we are completely excluded from the benefits of the Bill, and we consider that it would be unjust if we should have to contribute to these loan charges.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: I should not have risen in this Debate at all had it not been for the use of that very foolish illustration about the wise and the foolish virgins. I always understood that it was the habit of all Governments to borrow and to make posterity pay. However, I am not troubling much about that. What I am anxious to do is to relieve Ayrshire of the heavy burden which will rest upon it if the Bill as it stands is carried through by the Minister. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to give way or not. At the moment he seems to be beaming with benevolence but whether that is due to the fact that he feels himself in a very strong position, or because he intends to give us some satisfaction on this matter I do not know. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) expressed himself in agreement with the Amendment but I am not sure whether he will go into the Lobby with us if it is carried to a Division. I fear his political principles go too deep to allow him to support what is called a Socialist proposal, but whether we are Socialists or Liberals or supporters of the so-called National Government, I think we all wish that justice should be done to the districts which we represent and that is all we are claiming here.
I do not see why the Minister, when taking over all these other powers and responsibilities, could not take over this liability also. I do not wish to stand in the way of other speakers who know more about the details of this question, but I do know this, and I would like the Minister to understand it—that if the Bill passes in its present form, Ayrshire and many other parts of Scotland, and England as well, will suffer heavily. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) that Lincolnshire 'will suffer and I believe that applies to many other districts all


over the country. I trust that the expression on the Minister's face means that he is going to give us relief in some shape or form. [An HoN. MEMBER: "A poker face."] I do not know, I never saw a "poker face," but, at any rate, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to promise us some relief in this part of the Bill. If he does so I am sure that those concerned in all parts of the country will unite in saying "God bless the Bill."

7.40 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: It is only a few short weeks since the Minister paid his first official visit to Scotland. He went there to celebrate the centenary of that hero of road-making, McAdam. While he was there he earned golden opinions by reason of his sympathy and his understanding of road problems and the difficulties of road authorities. For his own sake, and in his own interest, I ask him now to preserve that good opinion by relenting on this question of the loan charges. During the Second Beading Debate I tried to get an exact answer to the conundrum: Why was the Minister prepared to take over the roads, with all their assets and all their liabilities, except only these loans and loan charges? No answer has yet come to light. Unless the Minister can see his way to remove this burden from local authorities, they will be placed in a very difficult position, and if he refuses this request, I fear that his reputation for sympathy and understanding, as well as the position of these rural authorities, will be seriously menaced. As regards the rather unjustifiable analogy used by the hon. Member opposite about the wise and the foolish virgins, I would ask whether it is not the wise virgins who are going to be penalised under the Bill? The progressive and far-seeing authorities who paid out of revenue—and that revenue came out of taxation or rates—will be penalised under the Bill. I sincerely hope that the Minister will see that point of view and recognise the claims of those authorities who accepted the burdens which came to them and are now entitled to some consideration.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: I do not wish to stand between the Committee and the

felicitous announcement which the Minister is, no doubt, about to make in response to these appeals from all parts of the Committee. I desire to mention the case of Durham County, which has always done its duty as regards highways. Prior to taking over the burden of the smaller authorities under the 1929 Act the highway rate in Durham was 13.0d. in the £, whereas to-day, as a, result of the progressive policy of the county council, it is no less than 44.0d. in the £, which illustrates the great burden that is laid on one of the poorest counties in the United Kingdom. There are substantial outstanding loans because it was clearly impossible in a poverty stricken county to find the revenue otherwise. I feel that we are possibly arguing quite unnecessarily on these loan charges and that the reference in the Bill may be due to a printer's error. At all events I hope the Minister will soon clear these loan charges out of the way. Why should we have this exception? If he does not assent to the appeals which have been made, particularly for democratic and progressive councils, such as the County Council of Durham, there is no doubt that a very great hardship, for which, so far as I can see, there can be no justification, will be inflicted upon this great and progressive county.

7.46 p.m.

Sir PAUL LATHAM: Unlike most of those who have preceded me, I am going to support the Minister. I am not going into the question of whether the counties are wise or foolish virgins or indeed whether they are virgins at all. If there is to be a parable in this case, the proper one, I think, is the parable of the vineyard, because here it appears that the man who got the pay has been working all day as well as the man who has been working half the day; in other words, one man is well off, because his contract has been fulfilled, and so is the other man. In this case the county which spent money spent it in order to get a good road, and they probably have a good road now and are enjoying the benefit of it. If the Ministry take over the road, that county is fortunate, but another county which may not have done its duty in regard to roads is now more fortunate still and both should be happy. I hope the Minister will not withdraw his Clause.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir P. Latham) for the still, E mall, but very powerful voice which he raised on my behalf. We have had 12 speeches upon this subject, and as they all dealt with the same point, it may perhaps be well if I do not refer to each of them individually, except in so far as it is germane to the particular aspect of the argument with which I may be dealing. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) told the Committee that the Scottish County Councils Association felt so keenly upon this matter that they had sent a telegram to every Scottish Member. I must congratulate the Scottish County Councils Association on the manner in which the Members have responded, for almost from north to south and from east to west every one of -them has spoken in this Debate, and there has been a complete unity among all these speakers, quite irrespective of the divisions which usually separate them. It is a very happy event to bring these people together in all parts of the House, and most unexpected, and I cannot help rising in a very good though somewhat auspicious frame of mind, because I noticed that speaker after speaker went ant of his way almost to find means how best to pay me a compliment. I have been called smiling, amenable, generous, and so forth, and I would like to be able to live up to that standard. However, I must deal with this case on its merits and not merely in order to give satisfaction on emotional grounds to those who have spoken.
I cannot see the merits of this case that has been put to me. It might be imagined, from the fact that the case is presented at all, that I am taking over some asset, some revenue-earning undertaking, and that, therefore, I ought to compensate those who suffer as a result, but, of course, that is not the position at all. I am relieving local authorities of a liability. We have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) that the total annual burden in respect of those loan charges in the past is £150,000, which, of course, is a diminishing sum, but I am relieving them, in respect of these roads, of maintenance costs of four times that amount. I am

relieving them, or rather the Government are relieving them, of all their future liabilities in respect of improvements. Therefore, these authorities are not handing over to the Government anything out of which the Government could make money. They are handing over to the Government properties which in the past have cost them much to maintain and which in the future will cost them nothing.
What is their case? They say, "Some of us borrowed in order to make these roads." That is quite true, but others did not borrow; others put the burden upon their ratepayers from year to year. Why should those who bore that burden not have their rates refunded to them, if this is the principle and we are to go back to the remote past? The proposal in the Amendment is confined to the suggestion that those who borrowed shall be repaid, whereas those who paid out of rates shall be left exactly where they were. That is quite the reverse of the position that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) stated. There is no proposal here to go back into the past in respect of the rates, but there is a proposal to take over the loans.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Had I not desired to sit down quickly in order to allow the Minister to reply, I would have explained. Of course, those who have paid out of revenue should have a capitalisation of that outlay refunded to them, so as to allow the ratepayers who subscribed to those charges to be refunded.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. and gallant Friend put his case powerfully, but this is a proposal that the State should meet the outstanding loan liabilities of those authorities which borrowed, and it is not a proposal to pay back rates to those which paid out of rates. Of course, if it were, I should have to resist it, because there would be no end to such a process. It is true that in 1929 the counties took over liabilities which were previously incurred by smaller authorities. That was in respect of what are now county roads, but that seems to me to be quite a different proposition, because here we are taking over the full 100 per cent. cost of maintaining these roads in the future, which was not the case in 1929.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it quite correct that in all cases the counties took over the liabilities? It is true, or I suggest that it is true, that there were county councils which had carried through their road programme on revenue and there were small burghs which borrowed, yet the county council which had carried through its own roads on revenue was compelled, under the 1929 Act, to take over the liability for the roads of the small burgh.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have admitted that that was the case, and even if it were a parallel case, which I deny, for the reasons which I have given, I still could not accept this Amendment. I have said that there is no parallel case to the State taking over 100 per cent. of the cost of the future liability for these roads, and if we were to make a financial readjustment in respect of the past, it would be an inequitable one. I was going to give the case of Devon on the one hand and Middlesex on the other. Middlesex is a rich county, but it has borrowed; it has paid for its roads out of borrowed money. Devon is a poorer county, and it has always paid for its roads out of the rates. I do not know what portion of this £150,000, which is the annual liability mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, belongs to Middlesex, but Middlesex would certainly get something as a result of this Amendment, while Devon would get nothing, and that, I think, is an illustration, and an illustration only, of the inequality and inequity of this proposition. With all the good will in the world, I therefore cannot see any ground for adding the further relief suggested to the substantial relief already

granted, and placing on the shoulders of the taxpayer an additional burden, however minute. It is with very real regret and with a thorough and sympathetic appreciation of the case that has been put forward that I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.

Mr. MATHERS: Before the Minister sits down, may I ask whether his failure to make any mention of the third description of authority mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) is an indication that there is no such authority? The Minister is refusing to take over financial burdens that have been incurred by those who have built roads, but he is taking over in this Bill responsibility for the expenditure of money in respect of roads still to be built.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) always speaks with good tone and temper, and I should be sorry to answer him in any other spirit. He mentioned three types of authority, all of which doubtless exist, but he did not make any impression on my mind as to the validity of the case which I made in reply. It all comes down to the principle which I have enunciated, and now that the anaesthetic has been administered and the operation performed, I trust that we shall be able to pass to the next Amendment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 97.

Division No. 22.]
AYES.
[8.0 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Duggan, H. J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Channon, H.
Dunne, P. R. R.


Albery, Sir Irving
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S (E. Grinstead)
Eastwood, J. F.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Ellis, Sir G.


Apsley, Lord
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Elliston, G. S.


Askew Sir R. W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Elmley, Viscount


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Balniel, Lord
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Findlay, Sir E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cranborne, Viscount
Foot, D. M.


Bernays, R. H.
Crooke, J. S.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Blair, Sir R.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Furness, S. N.


Blindell, Sir J.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Ganzonl, Sir J.


Boulton, W. W.
Crossley, A. C.
Giucksteln, L. H.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Dawson, Sir P.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Bull, B. B.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddi'sbro, W.)


Butler, R. A.
Denville, Alfred
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Guest, Clot. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)


Cary, R. A.
Drewe, C.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)




Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Guy, J. C. M.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Selley, H. R.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Harbord, A.
Markham, S. F.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Maxwell, S. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Simmonds, O. E.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Mitchell, H. (Brenttord and Chiswick)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hepworth, J.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Spens, W. P.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hopkinson, A.
Munro, P.
Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Nicolson, Hon. H.G.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Stuart, Hon. J.


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Tate, Mavis C.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Keeling, E. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Petherick, M.
Turton, R. H.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Pilkington, R.
Wakefield, W W.


Kimball, L.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Latham, Sir P.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wardlaw-M line, Sir J. S.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Warrender, Sir V.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Liddall. W. S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Little, Sir E. Graham.
Remer, J. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut,-Colonel G.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Lloyd, G. W.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wragg, H.


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


MacDonald Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Rowlands, G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.



McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


McKie, J. H.
Salt, E. W.
Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Cross.


MacLaren, A.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)





NOES


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, J. H. (W hltechapel)
Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hardie, G. D.
Potts, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ouibell, D. J. K.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Baines, A. J.
Hollins, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Batey, J.
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Bellenger, F.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sanders, W. S.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bremfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.


Brooke, W.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, A.


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Silkin, L.


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Donble, W.
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Thurtle. E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelity)
Maclean, N.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Welsh, J. C.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Westwood, J.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muff, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Noel-Raker, P. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Oliver, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 12. line 6, leave out "the," and insert "any such."

In line 10, leave out the first "the," and insert "any such."

In page 12, line 25, leave out "former highway."

In line 25, after "authority," insert "from whom it was transferred."

In page 13, line 3, after "authority," insert "and to any local authority."

In line 6, at the end, add:
or, so far as relates to property and liabilities vested in or incurred by the


Minister for the purposes of any functions under the enactments mentioned in Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act, to the local authority which is to exercise those functions in relation to the road."—[Captain Hudson.]

Clause 8 (Exemption from stamp duty), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Expenses.)

8.10 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: I beg to move, in page 13, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (2).
I have also an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (3) and, if I may, I will refer to both Amendments. I have put them down because there is a strong feeling among county councils about this particular question. Sub-section (2) of Section 86 of the Local Government Act, 1933, deals with the payment by county councils of sums exceeding 250. They can only be paid on a resolution passed by the council after a resolution has been submitted to it by the Finance Committee. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 184 of the same Act regulates payment out of the county fund, and Subsection (2) of Section 187 deals with payments out of the general rate fund of a borough. These provisions of the 1933 Act have been looked upon by councils as their financial security, but Clause 9 of this Bill proposes to remove them, and I would like to know what procedure the Minister is proposing to put in their place. I do not want to make any aspersions on the integrity of the officials of county councils, but it is our duty in a Bill of this description to make such provision as will enable us to deal with those who are not as honest as the present employés. If the county accountant is asked to pay a cheque, on whose authority is it to be paid? Is he to pay it after the account has been initialled by the road surveyor of the county? Suppose a bill is presented to the county accountant for payment on the certificate of the road surveyor. The account may include an item which may or may not be put down as an extra, but which should be part of the contract. We know that after a contract has been made extras are sometimes added and the county accountant, without having some procedure of inspection or some safeguard, would not

be able to say whether that item was accurate. Later, when the account goes to the Ministry some official may say that the account is not correct and that a part of it which had been paid ought not to have been paid. Who is to indemnify the county for payments which have been made incorrectly in this way? I can see nothing in the Bill which replaces the safeguards of the 1933 Act.

8.14 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: The reason we are proposing to alter the procedure by means of this Sub-section is that we consider that the present machinery is too, complicated for the circumstances which will arise after the transfer of these roads to the Minister. Money will be paid by the county council as agents and it will be paid in advance. These Sub-sections have been inserted after discussion with the County Councils Association, who share the view of the Minister that the machinery which has been devised in the past for the safeguarding of local ratepayers in the Local Government Act, 1933, is inappropriate in connection with an agency transaction undertaken as this transaction will be. The costs incurred by the county councils for the Ministry of Transport will be incurred after the Minister has delegated certain of his functions to the councils and has authorised expenditure on the basis of an approved estimate, and we feel that the application of this machinery will only result in unnecessary delays and, in the circumstances, would provide no useful or necessary safeguard either to the Minister or to the council. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) asked what is to be put in its place. Surely the answer to that is that the council will in each case adopt a suitable system of internal audit to deal with these matters. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the system under the Local Government Act of 1933 is cumbersome and is not necessary in the present circumstances. I am perfectly certain that no council will have any difficulty in devising machinery for actually paying out. In view of the fact that the money will be paid in advance under a proper estimate, we feel that these two Sub-sections, which leave out that cumbersome procedure, are necessary, and that the councils themselves—and that is our view after discussing it


with them—will have no difficulty in devising machinery to deal with their own individual cases.

8.13 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for his explanation, but I must say that I am not very well satisfied with it, because if it is so easy for the county councils to devise machinery under which these payments are to be made and safeguarded how is it that we cannot have it in the Bill or have agreement among the county councils as to the machinery they are to have? I do not wish to contradict the hon. and gallant Member, but I do not think the County Councils Association has said that they do not want this. What they did say was that they thought the present system was too cumbersome, but they did want to know what was to be put in its place, and up to now we have no information of what the procedure is to be. If the Minister thinks it; is so easy for them to take these necessary precautions against possible fraud, and is willing to indemnify the councils against any such loss, personally I have no objection to his leaving it to them. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 10 (Power to hold inquiries and obtain information) and 11 (Transitional provisions), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Application to Scotland.)

Amendment made: In page 17, line 9, after "and," insert "as."—[Captain Hudson.]

CLAUSE 3.—(Interpretation.)

8.19 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 18, line 25, to leave out from the second "road," to the end of line 30, and to insert:
the council in whom the road was vested immediately before it became a trunk road, and includes also any council by whom the functions of maintenance and repair of that road were then exercisable.

This is really a drafting Amendment put in for clarity. The purpose is to make it quite clear that in the case of roads in respect of which the county council have delegated the functions of maintenance and repair under Section 35 of the Local Government Act, 1929—that is, a claimed road—the property which was vested in either of the councils for the purposes of their functions shall be transferred to the Minister under Clause 7 (1) or by the Fifth Schedule. The Amendment is only put in to make the wording more clear.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.

Clause 14 (Short title, citation and extent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to compensation to officers.)

"(1) Every officer of a local authority, any of whose functions become exercisable by the Minister in pursuance of this Act, who is employed by that authority in or in connection with the exercise of their functions as a highway authority and who by virtue of this Act or of anything done in pursuance or in consequence thereof suffers any direct pecuniary loss by the determination of his appointment or by 'diminution or loss of fees, salary, or emoluments and for whose compensation for that loss provision is not made by any other enactment for the time being in force shall be entitled to compensation under this Act for that loss.

(2) The provisions contained in the Fourth Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, as set out in that Act (except paragraph 14 of that schedule) shall apply to the determination and payment of compensation under this Act to officers and all sums payable under that Schedule by way of compensation shall be paid by the Minister.

(3) For the purposes of this section and of the said schedule the expression 'officer' includes servant."—[Mr. Dingle Foot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) and myself, is designed to safeguard the interests of Local Government officers who are now concerned in the administration of highways and who may be affected by this


Measure. As I understand the Bill, it is intended that in the great majority of cases the maintenance and repair of these trunk roads will continue to be carried out by the local authorities. I assume that in the majority of cases the Minister will exercise his power of delegation under Clause 5 (1), but that will not necessarily be so in all cases, because while it is provided by that Sub-section that the Minister may by agreement delegate his functions, it is further provided by Sub-section (3) of the same Clause that the delegation may be determined by the Minister. In cases where the Minister does not exercise his right to delegate, or where he determines the delegation, there may be officers who have been employed by the local authority in the management of roads who will be affected by this Bill.
It is conceivable that an officer may lose his position altogether, though I do not think that will happen very often. What is far more likely to arise is a situation in which an officer finds that his duties have been to some extent diminished through certain roads being taken out of his care, and that as a result he suffers a reduction in salary. It may, of course, be said by the Minister that he is taking over only a small section of the roads which are in the charge of various councils, and that the greater part of their highway functions will still remain in their hands, but we may have cases in which the care of the particular trunk roads taken over have formed a large and important part of the work of particular officers, and I submit there may very well be cases where the duties of officers are quite seriously diminished. I am not proposing anything which is very new or novel in this Clause, because in recent years Parliament has passed a great many Statutes dealing with the transfer of functions from one public authority to another or their transfer from local authorities to some new public body created by the Statute or to some existing Ministry. In almost all cases of transfer of that kind, a Clause has been inserted on these lines to safeguard the interests of officers who were formerly administering the duties. The Committee will see that the proposed Clause does in fact refer to the Fourth Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in which provision is made for officers who might be affected in their employ-

ment. In the Local Government Act and in the Road Traffic Act, 1934, as well as in other Statutes, we have made provisions of this sort.
I would suggest to the Under-Secretary that if the Ministry cannot see their way to accept the new Clause as it stands, they might accept it with an Amendment to limit its operation to officers who are now carrying out functions with regard to housing. It may be said that those who come into local government service at some future time will know of the provisions of this Measure and will take them into account, but officers who are now carrying out these duties could not possibly know, when they began, that their functions might be curtailed by future legislation. I do not suggest that many officers are likely to suffer, but possibly there are numbers of them, and I think it would be the wish of the Committee to carry out our usual policy by making provision to guard against possible hardship.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I desire to associate my hon. Friends and myself with the arguments that have just been used by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and to support the proposed new Clause. It is usual to insert such a provision in Measures affecting local government officers, and we sincerely hope that this new Clause will be accepted.

8.28 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: The Committee will naturally have considerable sympathy with a suggestion that compensation should be provided to any officer of a local authority who may suffer loss of employment or of emoluments as a result of the passage of the Bill. I can assure the Committee that the Government gave much consideration to the question, and had various consultations, before introducing the Bill. They finally reached the conclusion that a Clause of this character would be superfluous. The hon. Gentleman who moved it will know that it is not in every Bill transferring functions that a Clause of this kind is included, although I admit that it is usual. For instance, there was no compensation Clause in Part II of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934. The reasons which induced my right hon. Friend not to put a Clause of this kind are. first,—

Mr. FOOT: Might I interrupt the Minister there? I am speaking only from recollection of Part II of the Unemployment Act, 1934, when I say that officers who were there affected were, for the most part, temporary officers who had been taken on by public assistance committees in order to administer the means test. My recollection is that although no statutory provision was made for them, an undertaking—a very definite undertaking—was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, that special consideration should be given to the case of those officers.

Captain HUDSON: I hope to convince the Committee that we are taking as much care as we can that no injustice is done. We are taking over only some 2 per cent. of the total road mileage. It is, therefore, extremely unlikely that if a given county council did not remain as agent of the Minister for maintenance, etc., sufficient employment could not be found on the remaining roads for any officers who had previously been employed, part-time or whole-time, on the trunk roads. It has been stated by the Minister and by myself, that it is the intention of the Ministry to utilise the existing machinery of local authorities, whenever that is possible. Again and again my right hon. Friend has said that he intends to use the councils as his agents. We are of opinion, and I think most of the Committee will be, that when the Bill has passed through the House and is in operation, so far from having the effect of throwing people out of employment it will, we hope, stimulate development, and that more people will be employed.
Furthermore, it seems to us that liability for compensation, if such liability lies, should rest not on the Ministry but on the local authority who are being financially relieved of the burden of the roads. The usual procedure, as I understand it., in that matter, is for the authority which compensates also to determine whether the transferred officer shall be retained or not. It would be an almost indefensible position if a local authority could decide upon retirement and profit—if there is any profit—by the economy so made, while the Exchequer paid the cost

without any effective voice in the decision. If there is to be compensation of officers because of the Bill, although I am certain that no such case of compensation will arise, it should be the local authority who should compensate rather than the Exchequer who should pay the money. I am informed that the proposed new Clause is not supported by the County Councils Association. I can assure the Committee that we have considered this very carefully, and are convinced that no injustice is being done by not putting provisions of this kind in. For the reasons I have given, I am afraid that I must resist the proposed new Clause.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: As the Minister has told the House that the Government do not contemplate any retirements as a result of the Bill, what can be the objection to providing for a contingency which they think might not arise? The Committee, while taking note of what the Minister has said about the County Councils Association, is not bound by any decision come to by that association. Its duty is to decide upon legislation and not to be cajoled or commanded by any outside body. The Minister said we cannot accept the proposed new Clause, on the grounds he stated, but if the Clause is badly drafted could not the Minister draft it so that if the Exchequer is not to be called upon to meet any such liability the county councils so discharging officers shall be compelled to meet the liability?

8.36 p.m.

Mr. MESSER: The Minister has not convinced me that the Government are taking the right line. It appears that they are defending their action, not on the ground of principle, but on the ground of the number of people who will be affected. I cannot see the logic of that attitude. We cannot consider only the aggregate. It is possible that one county council may have an immense amount of work taken from it as a result of the Government taking over these trunk roads. Huntingdonshire is an example. Consequently there is the possibility of displacement of officers because of the passage of the Bill. I should have been comforted if the Government had shown that they accepted the principle, because,


whatever may be said for the County Councils Association, it is the officers who need to be safeguarded. Can we be assured that there is not the possibility of officers losing their positions without compensation? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would show us what the position is. As a member of an important county council, I realise the objections to our omitting from an Act of Parliament a Clause that will safeguard officers who might be relieved of their positions as a result of the passing of the Act.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I was surprised to hear the attempt at justification made by the Parliamentary Secretary. When we were discussing the Electricity Bill in 1926, much the same point was put to us, but it was found later that many people were displaced, and many had their position worsened, by reason of the amalgamations which took place. Now we are going to take over 2½ per cent., and it may be that the method to be adopted for the maintenance and care of these roads may result in people being displaced. If that is so, surely it is for the Government, who are taking the responsibility and making the county councils simply their agents in this matter, to take over the responsibility with respect to compensation where there is displacement or worsening of conditions and also with respect to compensation for the pensions to which these people may have been entitled. As a member of a county council which will not be affected by this Measure, namely, the London County Council, I would ask the Government not to be led by the decision of the County Councils Association, particularly in a matter of this kind. I could wish that they were more sound on the question of compensation, and particularly compensation for displacement or worsening of conditions. I ask the Government to take their responsibility. They have no right to allow the position of any servants or workpeople to be worsened by reason of this new method of looking after our trunk roads. I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision and agree to accept the proposed new Clause, which will be to the advantage and will be but justice to those people who will be in our employ.

8.39 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) asked me why, if there were no one, or only very few, affected, it mattered whether we accepted the Clause or not, but that was only one of the arguments that I used. I also said that I considered it equitable that the local authorities, who had the dismissal or otherwise of these people, should be responsible, and not the Exchequer.

Mr. EDE: The county councils are to be the agents of the Ministry. Suppose that the Ministry said to them: "We think you are employing too many men on this job. You have too many draughtsmen getting the plans ready, and you must dismiss one or two." Who is responsible for that order being carried out? Should not the compensation fall on the Ministry?

Captain HUDSON: I do not think anything like that is at all likely to happen. After all, they are the agents. We are adding to the work of the county councils, and not detracting from it. The argument of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), that such a Clause was inserted in an Electricity Bill, is not parallel to this case. In eases of that kind, where units are amalgamated in order to get efficiency, one does envisage that certain people may be thrown out of employment, but in the present case that is not so. I assure the Committee that the fact that the County Councils Association have given a view on this matter does not make the Government either accept the principle of the Clause or reject it. At the same time, in this case, in which the Ministry is taking the place of the county councils, we have endeavoured as far as possible to frame the Bill by agreement and it is an argument on the side of the Minister that the county councils show no inclination and are unlikely to throw any employés out of work or treat them unjustly.

Mr. FOOT: The hon. and gallant Gentleman told us that the county councils at any rate do not support this proposal, and now he says they do not like it. Can he give any reason why they do not like it?

Captain HUDSON: I said at the beginning of my remarks on the Clause


that it is not supported and is not liked by the county councils. That is the information given to me. The reasons, I expect, are very much the reasons for whi3h I now ask the Committee to reject the Clause.

Mr. SMITH: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to give the matter some consideration in the event of such a contingency arising? The fact remains that the work of planning these roads, involving the employment of draughtsmen, might be done by the Ministry itself and not by the county

council, and that might have the effect of putting out of employment people who are at present employed. Surely the Minister can tell us that he will give a guarantee that no such discharges shall take place; or, in the absence of such a guarantee, cannot he say that someone competent to compensate these people shall be brought within the terms of the Bill?

Question put. "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes 98; Noes, 144.

Division No. 23.]
AYES
[8.45 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Oliver, G. H.


Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hardie, G. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adarason, W. M.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Potts, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Price, M. P.


Ammon, C. G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Qulbell, D. J. K.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hollins, A.
Rlley, B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Batey, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Rowson, G.


Bellenger, F.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sanders, W. S.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bromfield, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Brooke, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kirby, B. V.
Silkin, L.


Burke, W. A.
Lathan, G.
Simpson, F. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Dagger, G.
Leach, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dobble, W.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Ede, J. C.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Fool, D. M.
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Gallacher, W.
Maclean, N.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Westwood, J.


Gardner Jones, G. M.
Mothers, G.
Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Messer, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Milner, Major J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Gralam, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.




NOES


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Albery, Sir Irving
Craven-Ellis, W.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Crooke, J. S.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)


Ansley, Lord
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Harbord, A.


Ask,, Sir R. W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cross, R. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Balniel, Lord
Crossley, A. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Crowder, J. F. E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Blair, Sir R.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Blindell, Sir. J.
Dawson, Sir P.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Bossom, A. C.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Boulton, W. W.
Denville, Alfred
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Hopkinson, A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Bull, B. B.
Duggan, H. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Eiliston, G. S.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Elmley, Viscount
Hume, Sir G. H.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Fleming, E. L.
Keeling, E. H.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Furness, S. N.
Kimball, L.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Ganzonl, Sir J.
Lamb, Sir J. O.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Latham, Sir P.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Graham. Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)




Leech, Dr. J. W.
Procter, Major H. A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Lees-Jones, J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Liddall, W. S.
Ramsbotham, H.
Spens, W.P.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Rankin, R.
Strauss, E.A. (Southwark, N)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Stauss, H. G. (Norwhich


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Rayner, Major R.H.
Strickland, Captain W.F.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Reed, A.C. (Exeter)
Stuart, Hon J. (Moray and Nairn)


Makins, Brig.- Gen. E.
Remer, J.R.
Tate, Mavis C.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Rickards, G.W. (Skipton)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E.A. (Padd., S.)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.D.R.
Robinson, J.R. (Blackpool
Tree, A.R. L. F.


Markham, S. F.
Ropner, Colonel. L
Turton, R. H.


Maxwell, S.A.
Ross, Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wakefield, W.W.


Mayhew, Lt-Col. J.
Rowlands, G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A.L. (Hull)


Mellor, Sir J.S.P. (Tamworth)
Ruggles- Bries, Colonel Sir E.A.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Mills, Major J.D. (New Forest)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen
Wardlaw- Milne, Sir J.S.


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Salt, E.W.
Warrender, Sir V.


Moore, Lieut.- Col. T. C. R.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Morris, J.P. (Salford, N.)
Sanderson, Sir F.B.
Wise, A.R.


Morris- Jones, Dr. J. H.
Selley, H. R.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wragg, H.


Murihead, Lt.- Col. A.J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wright, Squardon- Leader J. A. C.


Orr-Ewing, L. L.
Shaw, Captain W.T. (Forter)
Young, A. S. L. (Patrick)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Shepperson, Sir E.W.



Petherick, M.
Simmonds, O. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Simon, Rt. Hon, Sir J. A.
Commander Southby and Captain




Waterhouse

New Clause.—(Roads advisory Committee.

(1) For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister in connection with the discharge of his functions as highway authority there shall be constituted a roads advisory committee (hereinafter referred to as "the committee").

(2) The committee shall consist of not more than twelve members representing the following interests, that is to say:


Highway authorities
4


Motor vehicle owners
3


Horse-drawn vehicle owners
1


Pedal cyclists
1


Pedestrians
1


Rural amenities
1


Labour
1

(3) The members of the committee shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with such bodies or associations representative of the interests concerned as he thinks fit.

(4) A member of the committee shall hold office for not less than three years and not more than five years from the date of his appointment as may be determined by the Minister at the time of his appointment, but shall be eligible for re-appointment at the expiration of that period.

(5) The chairman of the committee shall be elected by the members of the committee from among their own members.

(6) The committee may make regulations as to their procedure and method of voting and may at their discretion consider and report to the Minister upon any matters affecting the construction, improvement, and maintenance of trunk roads.—[Captain Strickland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.53 p. m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am sure hon. Members will realise what a great advantage it is that our roads should have a Minister in the House directly responsible for their administration or, at any rate, that part of the administration that he has had the courage to take in hand. I think they will also agree that the Minister has taken on himself a very heavy responsibility. Whereas road administration in the past under the county councils has been a subject in which many people can take part and many different interests be represented, so far as the Minister himself is concerned with that part of the trunk roads that he is taking over, he himself becomes the one central focal point of contact with the House of Commons. Through him Estimates are to be presented to the House, but before they are presented they will have to receive the approval and sanction of one who will be the complete master of the Minister, and who will allot such a sum as he thinks necessary for the administration of the roads. Parliament will then be called upon to discuss this Estimate and to sanction the expenditure on the roads that come under the control of the Ministry.
It seems to me that it would be a great advantage if there could be a little more publicity with regard to what is believed to be the necessary expenditure on the roads. It must be obvious that what in fact will happen will be this. The Minister, in his desire to do justice to the needs of road transport, may easily bring forward a scheme which may entail, we will say, a sum of £15,000,000 in the current year. The House will never hear,


and cannot possibly hear, that that is the sum the Minister himself thought would be necessary for expenditure during the coming 12 months. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer deems this sum to be in excess of what the revenue of the country can afford to spend on the roads, the Minister of Transport will be told to cut the expenditure down to, say, £10,000,000. We want to make sure that there will be some kind of public advisory committee which will have the power of studying, without fear of disrupting the peaceful relationships of the Cabinet itself, and of discussing what they believe to be the necessary expenditure on the roads. When one remembers that at the present time licences and Oil Duties yield a sum of £71,000,000 towards what should be spent upon the roads, one realises the legitimate demands road users might have for a great discussion on the needs of these roads. The Minister of Transport is not just Minister for Roads, as the Committee know. He is also Minister for the railways, canals, coastwise shipping, and, as the right hon. Gentleman himself says, for electricity. I did not mention electricity because that is not part of transport.
The improvement of highways will unquestionably have the effect of increasing the efficiency of road transport, which will come into direct opposition with another important section of the Minister's care—the railways. If the Minister is to hold the balance and try to protect the railways, as the Government have done in the past, often to the detriment of road transport, it will be almost the bounden duty of the Minister to see that too much money is not spent upon the roads with the result that traffic may be drawn away from the railways, and conflict of interests may easily arise. The new Clause which I am submitting for the consideration of the Committee provides for the setting up of an advisory committee of road interests. It will be noticed that it does not consist even of a majority of motor users. I have tried in the proposals to get representatives of every class of person interested in the proper administration of our highways. First of all there are the highway authorities, then the motor vehicles, horse vehicles, pedal cyclists, pedestrians, rural amenities, and, last but not least, labour.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: The hon. and gallant Gentleman could not have got much lower.

Captain STRICKLAND: The Committee follows the precedent set up in the Transport Act, 1919, and the Committee will realise that that committee was set up on much similar lines to those proposed under this new Clause. Thai; particular committee, it may be argued, was superseded in the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, by the formation of the Transport Advisory Committee. In case it is advanced as an argument why this particular committee should not be set up now that there is already a committee in existence, I would direct the attention of the Committee to the component parts of the Transport Advisory Committee. On that committee you have the local authorities, the users of mechanically-propelled vehicles, horse-drawn vehicles, representatives of the railways, the canals, coastwise shipping, harbours and docks, trading interests and labour. It is obvious that if you are to have a committee that is to deal with the administration of roads and the placing of them in a better condition than they are at the present time, you will get very great opposition from a large section of the Transport Advisory Committee. That committee is not concerned with road administration as such, but with the whole of the transport of the country.
So I suggest the formation of a committee entirely composed of specialists on the road, men who know from experience the dangers of the road and what is wanted on the roads in matters of lighting and administration. It would be a wise thing to have this body set up under this Bill. The essential feature of the committee is that it will have special knowledge and experience in the construction and use of roads and will deal only with the roads, and be representative of all sections of road users. The functions of the committee are laid down in the suggested Clause, and the committee shall be prepared at all times to consider the Minister's road programme or to suggest to the Minister necessary work and to include costs and estimates.
The Minister might well take advantage of such a committee for the purpose of consulting them and asking them to investigate the essential and more immediate needs of the trunk roads which


he is taking over. The formation of such a committee would have the effect of saving a good deal of Parliamentary time, and I would point out that it is proposed to be a purely advisory committee. It is to be in no sense executive and to have no power to do things, but it certainly will have the power to advise and the advantage of being available for consultative purposes, as well as have the great advantage of being intimately connected with each phase of road work. It will form a very useful avenue of approach both for road users to the Minister and for the Minister to all road users. It is with that object that I commend the suggested Clause to the notice of the Committee in the hope that they may approve of its insertion in the Bill, and express the pious hope that the Minister may accept it.

9.3 p.m.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I beg to second the Motion.
The Minister is undertaking the responsibility of looking after many thousands of miles of trunk roads, many of which are of the greatest strategic importance in time of war, and all of them of the utmost importance to the economic life of this country. Therefore, I am quite sure that the Minister, in carrying out this work, would desire to have those roads as model roads throughout the country from every point of view—from the point of view of construction in all its details and lighting, and of safety for road users. I also feel sure that the Minister would like to deal justly by road transport throughout the country. Up to the present time the railways have had it more or less all their own way, and legislation has been introduced in this country whereby the railways have a tremendous advantage over other forms of transport, which is not in the true interests of the economic life of the country. I desire to see fair play in this matter and that the Minister in taking over these trunk roads will hold the balance evenly.
We do not want the roads to have any undue advantage, but it must be realised to-day that they are forming a more and more important part in the transport of goods throughout the country. In time of war there would not be the slightest doubt that, owing to the menace from

the air in destroying rail communications, etc., coastwise traffic in co-operation with the goods system of the roads would be of the utmost importance to our security and the distribution of our goods. Therefore, it will be of the utmost assistance to the Minister to have a committee such as is suggested, which would consider the road problem purely from the point of view of the roads and their utility, and not from the point of view of competition with the railways or with other forms of transport, but purely from the road efficiency point of view. This committee will consist of men who are conversant with and experts in road construction, lighting and safety arrangements, and, from that point of view will represent the best that is available for helping the Minister to maintain the roads at their maximum efficiency. For these reasons I desire to support the new Clause.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. CROWDER: I support the proposal because I feel it is necessary to have a body who will be able to hold the balance between the views of the Minister and local authorities. They will also be able to advise him as to the opinion of the majority of ratepayers in the country as regards the grant system and the percentage grant system. It seems to me that in the end it will be much better for the Minister to pay 100 per cent. of the cost of the main roads and do away with the percentage grant system altogether, so leaving the minor unclassified roads to be paid for entirely by the ratepayers without any grant. Each county could then have such minor roads as it wanted and keep them up as their ratepayers thought fit. Such a body, having nothing to do with the Minister or with local authorities, would be able to advise the Minister in his direction. It would be able to keep the Minister in touch with public opinion in the country. We are to have representatives of pedestrians, rural amenities, pedal cyclists, and horse-drawn vehicle owners on the committee and, therefore, such a body might save the Minister the trouble of having to receive deputations, as he often does, from these various bodies, because these questions could be considered and brought before him by a responsible committee as constituted under the new Clause. They would also be experts in road construction and


would be thinking only of roads and not of transport. In my opinion it would be very useful to the Minister, and to some extent would keep these questions out of politics, if such an outside body made recommendations to him. I commend the new Clause to the Committee as being very useful to the Minister, to the ratepayers and to the country.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: The party which I represent welcome a committee for assisting the Minister. The Transport Advisory Council and the London Traffic Advisory Committee have not been unhelpful to the right hon. Gentleman and his Department in the past. We welcome a committee in principle, but what the representatives of the Rural Amenities Association can have to do with the defence of the country on such a committee I cannot understand, or what pedal cyclists can have to say about it. Surely the duty of the defence of the country devolves on this House. The Committee, as suggested, is to consist of four representatives of highway authorities three motor-vehicle owners, one horse-drawn vehicle owner, who, of coarse, will know something about our trunk roads! I wonder how many of them go from London to Edinburgh or London to Newcastle, and how they can be competent to advise the Minister on trunk roads. The area of a pedal cyclist is circumscribed by his physical capacity. The trunk roads we have to visualise are trunk roads with cycle tracks. Up to now the cyclists' associations have steadily resented the idea of cycle tracks. Being hazardous they prefer to take the risks of the road rather than seek the safety of the green lanes which the Minister proposes. What can the pedestrian know about our trunk roads? He knows about the roads in his immediate vicinity, he has to get to his job and back again, but what as a pedestrian he knows about our trunk roads passes my comprehension.

Captain STRICKLAND: Trunk roads have to pass through villages and towns, and a pedestrian has to get across the road or use a footpath along the particular section in his immediate vicinity.

Mr. SMITH: I take it that one would come from Lerwick, another from Middlesex and another from Argyllshire. They would have to know about what is

going to happen in London, Manchester, Birmingham or South Wales. I say it is unnecessary to put such a representative on the committee. Then, as the hon. and gallant Member said, last but not lease there is labour. There is a slight recognition that labour still exists and potters about the country where it can, doing what it can. But why only one representative? You would get much more information of our trunk roads from people who operate the lorries—

Captain STRICKLAND: I hope the hon. Member will not misunderstand the use of the word "labour." It is not labour as represented by the lorry driver, but someone to represent trade union matters, the wages which are paid on the roads for upkeep and so on. If a lorry driver came in, he would come in under the heading of "motor vehicle owners."

Mr. SMITH: The hon. and gallant Member's fear is that the Minister through his agents will not pay proper wages. We believe that the Minister will see that the fair wages clause is operative on the working side of the scheme. Nevertheless, we are in favour in principle of some committee. One can understand a rich or progressive county council seeking some favoured treatment from the Minister by some kind of pressure, to say nothing of the fact that the Minister may develop a not unnatural love for his own constituency and give them a trunk road perhaps more quickly than he would the constituency which I represent. Therefore, for the purpose of co-ordinating the desires of county councils and to see that the Department carries out this work with something like equity as between the county councils, I hope the Minister will consider favourably the appointment of some committee to advise him on things which are most essential and to see fair play as between highway committees in the country.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. MITCHELL: I would like to support the proposed Clause in principle. I agree with most of the arguments made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) in moving the Clause, and I agree to some extent with the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) in his criticism of the personnel of the suggested committee; but I think that is a matter which could be arranged. I agree with


the hon. Member for Rotherhithe that the proportion given to labour is not sufficient; nor do I think the representation given to industry is sufficient. I would like particularly to emphasise the last sentence of the proposed Clause, which is to the effect that the committee may advise the Minister
upon any matters affecting the construction, improvement and maintenance of trunk roads.
I feel that the committee would be of considerable use in drawing the attention of the Ministry to the need for using British road materials.
As an illustration, something like 2,000,000 tons of crude tar are produced annually in this country from British coal, and, while other products are made from it, there are included something like 750,000 tons of road tar used annually on road work in this country; but in spite of that, 300,000 tons of bitumen and ashphalt are imported annually, mostly from sources outside the Empire. That is the sort of thing which one would like to have the proposed committee bear in mind. I think the users of the roads and the public in general would like to feel that in the construction of these improved trunk roads British road materials are used as far as possible. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) referred to the need for these roads in connection with defence, and I would like to emphasise the need for drawing our materials for making them from home sources, particularly at a time when some of the areas which produce the materials —for example, South Wales—are going through a period of very considerable difficulty. I hope that if the committee is set up, greater representation will be given both to labour and to the employers in those industries producing road materials. If that were done, I am sure the committee would serve a very useful and helpful purpose.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I recognise that this proposed Clause is supported by powerful advocates, but I am still unable to see what practical purpose it would achieve. This Bill has been introduced in order to supersede a system under which 88 different committees managed these roads and to vest them in one central authority, namely, the

Minister of Transport. My object is to get something done, and I thought that was the object of everybody who advocated this Bill, or something approaching. No sooner do I introduce it than the warmest supporters turn round and propose that I should be circumscribed by another committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That is the proposal on the Paper. As the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) pointed out, a Transport Advisory Council—a majestic body—was set up by Parliament for the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister. It has on it six representatives of highway authorities. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) proposes that another committee should be appointed for the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister. He does not propose six representatives of highway authorities, but four. He admits that two must be redundant, but are the other four likely to give advice different from the representatives of the highway authorities on the Transport Advisory Council? He proposes that there should be three representatives of the motor vehicle users.

Captain STR ICKLAND: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind if I asked him when the Transport Advisory Council last met?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would not mind in the least, but I can assure the hon. Member that it is a most active and competent body, which is in constant session, either directly or through numerous committees, and that no praise I could bestow upon it would be good enough. A new chairman has just been appointed—Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, who was chairman of the Royal Commission on Transport, who has resigned all his personal interests in transport in order to give his time gratuitously to the State. The council is a most competent body, and I will not tolerate any aspersions on it.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: I did not wish to cast any aspersions on the Committee—

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was not referring to the hon. Member.

Mr. B. SMITH: But I would like the right hon. Gentleman to inform the Committee whether the duties of the six


representatives of highway authorities on the council are not defined, and that it deals with such subjects as road safety, but not with road construction?

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If I might be permitted to continue, otherwise the Debate will degenerate into—

Captain STRICKLAND: On a point of explanation. I am not quite sure whether we are thinking of the same committee. I am referring to the committee set up under the 1919 Act. The committee set up under the 1933 Act was a different committee, which deals with railways and other transport, be sides road transport.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not think it is necessary for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry to interrupt everybody who is making a speech, because everything will come in due course—I cannot say everything at once. I was saying that I would not tolerate any aspersions on the council, and the hon. Member for Coventry asked me when it last met, as though it were a mere body which met—

Captain STRICKLAND: Is it the 1919 Committee?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am talking of the Transport Advisory Council set up by the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, only three years ago. The other one was abolished then, and a more modern committee established. I am merely explaining that at the moment I am advised by this council, which has upon it six representatives of the highway authorities; but my hon. and gallant Friend suggests a committee which would have four, and I ask him whether the highway authorities are going to give through six representatives different advice from that which they give through four? The hon. Member proposes three representatives of the motor-vehicle owners. I have five upon the Transport Advisory Council. Are they going to give different advice according to the committee on which they sit? He suggests one representative of the horse-drawn vehicle owners. I have one. Presumably, as these people are always appointed or nominated by associations, there would be exactly the same man. He suggests

one representative of pedal cyclists. I have one. He suggests one for pedestrians. I have one. I agree that I have no representative of rural amenities, but I have six representatives of highway authorities who are concerned with rural amenities. He suggests one representative of labour, and I have three.
I put it to the Committee that if it wishes something to be done, it should refrain from trying to impose upon me another committee which is not dissimilar from the one already in existence. As I have said, I recognise the great work which this council is doing, because it happens to have an extremely fine personnel. On committees generally, is there not liable to be some misconception? There are ministries of State which are responsible to this House. They engage staffs which are the best that they can acquire. These staffs have to do work from day to day. They have to do the job. If a road is out of repair it has to be repaired. If a new bridge requires to be built somebody has to discuss it and come to a decision. If you keep piling committee on top of committee you get nothing done at all. Everybody is afraid to act. The Ministry has a highly competent staff who have shown their desire and enthusiasm to improve the road system. They come and say: "Make things easier; facilitate our task, so that road users may get through to their destination." In these circumstances I do not expect the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry to come and block my path with one more committee.
If it is a question of technical knowledge, I have it in my Department. If the House thinks that I have not got that knowledge, it should see to it that I get better officials. A committee of surveyors from our Department and from various authorities has been in session some time. They have produced a circular on the layout of roads which I hope hon. Members have read. We shall shortly produce another. These are matters for experts. Similarly we have had a Departmental Committee on lighting, on which highway authorities also were represented and anyone who could contribute to the problem. In these circumstances I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw his Amendment which, in my judgment, if carried, far from advancing progress and


far from smoothing and freeing our way, would further encumber it. That, I know, is not his desire. He is the last person to wish that. So is my hon. Friend who knows so much about the transport of the` sea. They want to go ahead and get some business done. So do I. I therefore plead with my hon. Friends, having acquainted me with their desires on the subject, to trust me and my successors to do our best for road users generally.

9.29 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I would like to ask the Minister whether he would give me an assurance that the Transport Advisory Council of which he has spoken will see to it that the railway representatives do not have a voice on the construction of roads and the improvement of their condition. If he could give me that assurance I should be quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. HO R E-BELISHA: This Transport Advisory Council, in my judgment, has looked at transport as a whole. On this committee there are three railway representatives as against six highway authorities and a number of pedestrians and road users generally. So that the railways are in a distinct minority. The Council works through committees on particular subjects. On most of these committees the railways are not represented. I can assure my hon. Friend that the railways have not exercised and will not exercise an unbalanced influence on our counsels.

Captain STRICKLAND: In view of the Minister's assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: The next two Clauses in the names of the hon. Members for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and Barnstaple (Mr. Acland)— (Additional trunk roads by agreement with highway authority) and (Provision of standard road)—are out of order.

Orders of the Day — FIRST ScHEavia—(Roads which become trunk roads by virtue of this Act.)

9.30 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to move in page 21, line 28, at the end, to insert:

"LONDON—KING'S LYNN
London —Tottenham —Ware—Buntingford—Royston (fork right)—Cambridgec—Downham Market—King's Lynn.
A10."

I have been asked by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) whether in his unavoidable absence I would move this addition to the Schedule. The point he wished to make was that this is essentially the type of road which should be a main trunk road under the authority of the Minister. It would have to come into play in the case of the defence of the country and particularly the defence of London. From the national point of view and from the defence point of view it is an essential road.

9.31 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: This is the first of a number of Amendments to the Schedule in which hon. Members suggest that we should add certain roads to those which are now in the Bill. While I sympathise very much with hon. Members who have particular roads which they wish to be added, I would ask the Committee to remember what my right hon. Friend said when moving the Second Reading of this Bill—that all the roads which we have included, or the vast majority of them, are essential roads, and he used the illustration that they are the roads which would have to be constructed should something happen like an earthquake and the whole of the roads of this country were wiped out. Therefore, in replying to the various Amendments suggesting additional roads I have to consider that and consider the merits of the road suggested. Let us take this road. It lies midway between the Great North Road and the road from London to Norwich, and until it reaches Cambridge at no point is it more than 15 miles from one or other of these roads. It then passes through the Fen country to King's Lynn and joins the cross-country trunk road to Birmingham. In that part of the road, beyond Cambridge, there is no point at which it is more than 20 miles from a trunk road. East Anglia is well served, as anybody can see by looking at the map, by trunk roads, and I am afraid that we cannot see any justification for adding this road more than any other to the Schedule. I am sorry to have to refuse my hon. and gallant Friend, but at the same time I feel that the Committee


will agree that there is no sufficient justification for adding this road.
Amendment negatived.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, in page 27. line 22, at the end, to insert:

EXETER—MAID STONE
Exeter (junction with A. 30)—Chard—Ilminter—Ilehester—
A. 303



Wineanton—Amesbury—Andover—Basingstoke—
A. 287



Farnham
A.31



Guildford —Redhill —Wrotbam
A.25."

I move this addition to the Schedule with less enthusiasm than I would have felt if I had not listened to earlier parts of the Debate, because I really thought, when I read the exterior of this Bill, that it was a Bill to provide a national system of roads for through traffic. But after listening to the Debate I fear that this is merely a Bill to make financial adjustments with the county councils an d on the whole to do very little more, and I am bound to say that the Minister will surprise me a good deal if at the end of five years these so-called trunk roads have taken on a very different appearance from that of many of the roads which are not trunk roads at all. Nevertheless, turning to this route which propose to include in the Bill for whatever it may be worth, I divide it into two parts.

It was the route between Exeter and Basingstoke via Stockbridge which first made me doubt whether this Bill was really a trunk road for through traffic, for anyone living in the West of England knows that the road Exeter (junction with A.30) Chard, Ilminster, Ilchester, Wincanton, Amesbury, Andover and Basingstoke is to-day very, very much nearer to being a through trunk road than the other. It has far fewer towns on it. It is far straighter and it runs through land which is agriculturally, I believe, less valuable. It could have been widened and made into a trunk road at less expense, and it is the road which almost everybody in the West of England uses for approaching London. I think it is regretted by many in the West of England that that road was not selected as a trunk road. I put separately the ease of Basingstoke, Farnham, Guildford, Redhill, Wrotham and Maidstone, and that is the road which connects the

West of England with the channel ports, particularly with Dover, without passing through London.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman envisaged the case of an earthquake which wiped out all the roads, but may I put to him the much more likely though, as we hope, not too pressing case of a disaster which wiped out the great meeting of roads in London? If such a thing were to happen the road which I propose, connecting the Channel ports, including Dover, with the rest, and with the Middle-West of England, would become one of the most vital routes in our system; and in my submission on those grounds it ought to be a trunk road, particularly as those parts of the road between Basingstoke and Maidstone do not appear to any of the county authorities, through any of whose areas they pass, to be as important as those roads really are in the national structure of main roads.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I have very much pleasure in strongly supporting the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland). I am bound to say that I shared his astonishment when I saw the extraordinary line that the right hon. Gentleman included in his Bill to get to the South-West of England, because he stuck to A.30 until it really became what a trunk road should be, and then he deserted it for the road that goes south of Dartmoor instead of the road A.30 north of Dartmoor through Okehampton. But I want to support it not so much for that part of the road as for the part that runs eastward from Basingstoke. That is a road of very great importance for the country, as the hon. Member for Barnstaple said, in the event of the route through London being destroyed or made impossible, because then it would be the natural line of traffic proceeding from Dover, Chatham and the great military centres through to Aldershot and Salisbury Plain and Plymouth. If any regard at all is had to the Defence of the Realm in the Schedules of the Bill, this particular road is the one which a mechanised army would have to use if it were being moved south of the Thames from either West to East or East to West. A very considerable sum of money has been spent by the county councils in Surrey and Kent on improving this road, and I know that they share the astonishment which was


expressed by the hon. Member for Barnstaple at this route not being included.
I beg that if the Minister's mind is still open to conviction on the matter he will seriously consider the inclusion of this road in the Bill, because it supplies a much needed route which does the greatest thing of all: it enables a great deal of traffic to by-pass London, and that I should think is in itself a very great recommendation indeed to a route. I know from personal experience the great amount of traffic that uses it now, and if it were made more useful for traffic I am quite sure that a very considerable amount of traffic that now enters London merely to go out of it again, would be deflected to use this road for the purpose of getting from the Channel ports to the West of England or vice versa.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: When the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) supports an Amendment it is a guarantee to me that that Amendment is a serious one. Not that I would object to an Amendment if my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) moved it. On the contrary; but he has put down so many Amendments on the Paper that it is a little embarrassing to decide which of them is really to be conceded as important. What the hon. Member for South Shields says is that one section of the road is entitled to be made, in time to come, a trunk road. But that applies to only one section of it. I have the full map of the road here and, as the hon. Member will appreciate, from Chard it passes to the North of the existing London—Penzance road and parallels it for a distance of 15 miles. A great section of this road comes within 15 miles of the existing trunk road, and I can conceive of nothing more wasteful than that part of the road. The other part on the map, I candidly admit, has more attraction, but so have a great many roads which one can draw on the map. But I am not proposing to accept any of these, because I have accepted 4,500 miles, all of which have been discussed with the county councils, and all of which, or practically all, were selected in the past without having anything to do with this Bill at all as being a central trunk road.
I do not mean to say that that exhausts the list of all the important roads in the

country. It does not, and it will be quite possible for every one of the 615 Members of this House, myself included, to propose additions to that list. If there is one circumstance that seems to me to justify the rejection of any desired route, and any power vested in me to amend the Schedule, this is the Amendment I prefer. By taking a map the number of proposals which you could make would be interminable and at the same time would appear quite logical.
The greater portion of the proposed roads, as can be seen on the map, runs parallel to the road which we have selected. The other portion of it has, possibly, the advantages, economic and strategic, which the hon. Member for South Shields mentioned, but I do not propose at this stage or at any stage, if the House will permit me to take this course, to lump roads into this Bill without prior discussion with the county councils whose finances are involved. All these proposals involve financial readjustments which I should have to discuss with those who are vitally and monetarily concerned. I hope the hon. Member for Barnstaple does not think that I reject his Amendment for the pleasure of doing so. I am compelled to take the course and any Minister here would be compelled to take the course of rejecting proposals to add new roads. The hon. Member is kind enough to offer to present me with between 700 and 1,000 miles of new roads or about a quarter of what I have in the Bill already. Where should I be if I began accepting these Amendments? I do not reject them because they have no merit but because they have less merit than the scheme in the Bill.
Amendment negatived.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 28, line 14, column 2, to leave out from the first "Wells," to "Newtown," in line 17, and to insert:

"
Builth Wells—New-bridge-on-Wye—Rhayader
A.479



Rhayader —Llangurig (Felin-Fawr)
A. 44



Llangurig (Felin-Fawr)
Llanidloes —Llandinam℄Penstroed —Newtown
A. 492."

I hope the Minister will not be as adamant in regard to this Amendment as
he has been in regard to some of the


others, because I am not really proposing to add a new road to his list, but I am suggesting an alternative to the route which has been chosen in the Schedule for the proposed trunk road from Swansea to Manchester. The position shortly is that this is the road chosen by the Minister for the route from South Wales to the North and unfortunately at some time or other—I think some time before this Bill was conceived—while the possibilities of trunk roads were being considered, somebody advising the Ministry suggested a deviation from the route usually followed and suggested going along what was until a few years ago a mere mountain track, involving a climb over about 1,200 feet to go to a very delectable, but rather expensive, place known as Llandrindod Wells which has the honour of being the birthplace of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones). That is the road which has been chosen instead of following the old road along the valleys of the Severn and Wye. Why this was done passes one's comprehension. If you go along the road laid down in the Schedule you pass over 20 miles of mountain land which has not the attraction of heather and gorse, but is rather bare agricultural lard where a very poor living is obtained by Montgomeryshire and Radnorshire farmers. It passes through no village and it benefits nobody. Its only advantage is that there are excellent views from it but then there are excellent views from every road in Wales and good as the views are on this road they are as nothing compared to those on the old road which I suggest in my Amendment.

I do not know whether any Members of the Committee know that part of Montgomeryshire where there is a small town called Newtown on the banks of the Severn. The old road follows the Severn on to a branch where one road turns down towards the Dovey estuary while the other turns left towards Llanidloes until it reaches the pass of Llangurig where it turns right and goes down to Aberystwyth. That is the main road to the Cardigan coast, the one usually followed and the one that is most popular, certainly with people from the Midlands. The road which turns left from Llangurig follows the valley of the Wye and passes a. place called Rhayader near which are the reservoirs which supply Birmingham with fresh water, and

then goes on towards Builth Wells. It passes within two miles of this little place Llandrindod Wells which sprang into existence during the past 30 or 40 years and consists of about 10 expensive hotels and a delightful golf course. There are several approaches. You can approach it also from Shropshire and from South Wales. The problem before the Committee is whether the road chosen in the Schedule is the right route to follow. I understand that the cost of straightening the proposed road, strengthening bridges and so forth will cost at least £70,000 whereas, on the old road, the total cost would only be about £7,000 because three county councils have already spent money on making these roads good sound roads, which could be taken over by the Minister without any addition. That is on the question of cost.

On the question of user, there is no comparison between the number of vehicles that pass along the old road as compared with the number that pass along what is known as this mountain road, which is to be a trunk road—no comparison in tonnage, in the number of vehicles, or in anything else. Moreover, that mountain road, which is the one mentioned in the Schedule, is probably better known to me than to any other Member of the House, for the very good reason that I have had to travel it at all times. There are times when it is impassable. It is an exposed road, and in order to attend meetings the ear has had to stop, and I have had to make my way through the snow to get to them. There are only one or two scattered schools and chapels along the whole length of it. Then what is the purpose of making it into a trunk road? Compared with the other road, which passed along sheltered valleys all the way, undoubtedly it reaches a high point at one point, about 900 feet—it rises, to 1,284 feet, and all the time passes along an exposed escarpment. That is the difference between the two roads. I ask the Minister to change his mind, or rather to change the Schedule with regard to this, because I hope he still has an open mind on the matter, and to give a preference to this older road.
There are one or two other matters about which I must trouble the Committee. The whole of the Montgomery-


shire County Council are in favour of the old road. It might be said against me that that is only natural, because the old road is in Montgomeryshire, and, therefore, they would be relieved to that extent of a certain mileage. Anyone can make that point. At any rate, it serves more people, it serves at least two small towns, it serves a number of villages on the way, and in addition it largely serves the Cardiganshire coast, and so I have the full support of the Montgomeryshire County Council. I have also the full support of the Cardiganshire County Council. They were asking that the road should be further prolonged and taken down the coast, but they recognised the strength of the case that we put forward that this should be the road. On the other hand, I understand that the Radnorshire County Council are now very much divided, because, whereas they thought it was going to be a great saving to them to have this new trunk road made, they now recognise that when they have that road made they will still have a large stretch of road along the old route which they will have to look after and repair, so there are divided counsels now in Radnorshire. Those are the three county councils involved, and the Minister said, quite rightly, that in all these matters the county councils should be consulted. That is my case, and I ask the Minister to say that it is better to follow the route that all Welsh people have followed throughout these hundreds of years and that that should be the route for him to follow from North to South.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. IVOR GUEST: I must ask the Committee to extend to me the indulgence which is usually granted to a Member addressing the House for the first time. I must say that I find myself in complete disagreement with everything that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Clement Davies) has just said with regard to the alternative route to that one which is in the Schedule to the Bill, and I think it is a fact that this is the only Amendment on the Paper that proposes an alternative route to the one which the Ministry in their wisdom have put in the Schedule. It is very difficult for the Committee to follow what is rather a

local question without a map and without local knowledge, but the Amendment, briefly, asks the Minister to substitute for the route in the Schedule a route some eight or nine miles longer and a route which it is estimated, and, I think, very conservatively and impartially estimated, will cost £62,000 more than that scheduled in the Bill. It is eight miles longer and would mean £62,000 more for the taxpayer to find.
I do not wish to weary the Committee with the technical and engineering arguments which I could bring forward in order to oppose the Amendment, but it should be noted that on this alternative route which has been suggested there are two towns, namely, Llanidloes and Rhayader, which are practically impossible to by-pass. Rhayader is an extremely tortuous town, and it would present considerable difficulties to a first-class trunk road. The road from Builth Wells to Llangurig is an extremely difficult engineering problem. On the one side you have what has been estimated to be the hardest rock in Great Britain, and on the other side you have sometimes a railway, sometimes a river, and very often both. On that alternative route there are also no fewer than five places where the railway crosses the road. Those five bridges would all of them have to be reconstructed at a very great cost, and there is also quite a substantial proportion of the route which is liable to flooding.
My hon. Friend made some remarks with regard to snow and the height of the road. It is true that the road in the Schedule is certainly a great deal higher than the alternative route suggested by the Amendment, but as a matter of fact, on account of the very open country through which it passes, that particular road, the one in the Schedule, is far freer from snow than the road that my hon. and learned Friend proposes to ask the Minister to substitute for it. He also made a certain amount of play with statistics of road users, but he admitted that most of the road users went on to Cardiganshire, and I presume to Aberystwyth. We are not discussing the road to Aberystwyth, which is an east to west road; we are discussing a road that goes from north to south, and I do not think those particular figures of traffic are of any real importance in this discussion.
May I point out the advantages of the road as it is in the Bill? It is eight miles shorter and is one of the best graded roads in that part of the country. It is possible, I am told, to bicycle from Builth Wells to Newtown and back without getting off. It passes through one considerable town, Llandrindod Wells, which offers no difficulties to through traffic, and which could, if necessary, be easily by-passed. The road is winding, I admit, but so are the majority of roads in that part of the country. It presents no engineering problems at all. The soil which would have to be cut through in order to widen the road is soft and easily worked, and there is, I am convinced, no engineering difficulty in making that road into a first-class trunk road. So far as the finances of Radnorshire are concerned, it makes no difference whether the road goes from Builth Wells or Rhayader on the alternative road. The milage is practically the same. Therefore, it is not a scheme of the county council to relieve their rates.
I refuse to accept my hon. and learned Friend's statement that Radnorshire is divided. The whole of the county council feel definitely that it would be in the interests of the county and of the road from north to south to adhere to the road as it is in the Bill. If the Minister accepts the Amendment it will mean that that little town to which my hon. and learned Friend referred but which I refer to as an important town, namely, Lland drindod Wells, would be cut off. As hon. Members will know if they have been there for their health or for other purposes, Llandrindod Wells is the most important town in mid-Wales. It is a great postal centre and the natural meeting place of north and south Wales and it would be a great pity if it were not afforded, in a country where transport is difficult, the very facilities that it wishes. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will adhere to the road which he and the Ministry have thought out, which for the last 12 years has always been considered a trunk road, and which has the blessings of the County Councils Association and of the county councils concerned.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. I. Guest) has, in his maiden speech, given a lucid and convincing rejoinder to the hon. and

learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) who tried to persuade the Minister to alter the route as laid down in the Schedule. The Minister must be much moved at the spectacle of so many Members trying to persuade him to take over the management of the trunk roads, but this is the only case among all the Amendments which have been proposed which seek to deflect one of these trunk roads and to substitute a new road for it. The hon. Member who proposed its substitution has charged the Committee with a difficult task if he is asking it to adjudicate between the merit of two roads running through the counties of Radnor and Montgomery. If it is to be judged on that ground I would submit one or two points in which the hon. Member was not quite accurate. He sought to tell the Committee that the road as laid down in the Bill, which I will call the original trunk road, was not in fact the normal route between Newtown and Builth Wells. It has, however, been the main, if not the only, road between these two places for 100 years. [Horn. MEMBERS: "No."] If that is not the case, all I can say is that we are asked to judge the merits of an internicine controversy as to what is the best road for the Minister to choose, but I hope the Minister is not going to judge this matter on arguments of that kind. This was the trunk road selected by the council of local authorities as long as 12 years ago, and what new reason has been adduced to change it now I am at a loss to understand. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that the road he proposes will cost less. I am advised, and I believe the Minister has been provided with most conclusive arguments on this point, that his proposal would cost at least 40 per cent. more The hon. Member made a great point about snow which he said occasionally blocked the original trunk road as laid down in the Schedule. I am informed that the road which he wishes to substitute runs through territory far more liable to flooding than the new road. At any rate, he cannot deny that there are five bridges which would have to be reconstructed.

Mr. C. DAVIES: On the contrary, on the road laid down in the Schedule at least six or seven bridges will have to be made. That is why I am asking for the alternative.

Mr. JONES: This difference between the hon. Gentleman and me only indicates the difficulty of judging a question like this in debate across the Floor of the House. I am informed that the expense in regard to the reconstruction of bridges will be considerably greater on the proposed new road than on the old road, and the Minister has in his possession facts which, I believe, will bear that out. The hon. Member will not deny that on the proposed alternative there will be two level crossings and that on the road in the Bill there are no level crossings. Level crossings are an annoying obstacle to road users, and that is a factor which the Minister ought to take into account.
My final point is this. It is said there is less traffic on the road as laid down in the Bill than on the proposed new road. There are two reasons for that which have not yet been brought out. The first reason is that a part of the trunk road now in the Bill comes under the jurisdiction of the county council represented by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and all the information which I have goes to show that that road has been neglected in its upkeep until it has become so bad that traffic from south to north deliberately avoids it. That being so, it is a strange thing that now that the Montgomeryshire County Council see that they are going to have this road kept up at the expense of the Ministry they are, for the first time, eager to have it taken over by him. Therefore, I would say that on every ground of efficient jurisdiction, on geographical grounds and from the point of view of economy of distance and of cost, as well as on the major principle of not making alterations in the Bill as the outcome of arguments across the Floor of the House in preference to judging on the opinions of those whom the Minister has to advise him, in consultation with the county councils, there is every reason why the Minister should adhere to the proposal in the Schedule.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I should like to say a few words as one who represents a South Wales constituency. It seems to me that both suggestions fall short in one particular of what is desirable. There is something to be said for the Minister's proposals for the new road from Swansea, shall we say, to the neighbourhood of Llandrindod Wells, because as things are

now there is no main road connection between that part of South Wales and Central Wales. The eastern part of Glamorganshire has its road, because people can pass up by Abergavenny, but when we come to the neighbourhood of Llandrindod Wells we get to a locality where we ought to continue the road so as to connect South Wales with Manchester or to connect South Wales with North Wales. That is where, I think, the Ministry of Transport have fallen short of what is necessary. People who travel along the new trunk road from Swansea to Llandrindod Wells can quite easily go across country to join the main road up through Hereford, but there is no connection between South Wales and North Wales except by going up through Chester, which is a long and roundabout journey. I beg hon. Members to realise how very important this may become. There is a strong demand in South Wales, though it is true that it has been rejected up to now by the Ministry of Transport, for a new bridge over the Severn. Some day that may come, and when it does that scheme will, in my judgment, be incomplete unless it can link up with a road which will run up through Central Wales, coming out somewhere near Carnarvon, so that the whole of Wales shall have a central artery running from south to north.
Another point is that the industries of North Wales are not now so very flourishing. The main industry is quarrying, and that is menaced by foreign competition in various ways. Apart from quarrying North Wales, as I think, will be compelled more and more to develop itself as a summer resort, and in that case there ought to be better facilities for connecting North and South Wales. The right hon. Gentleman has seemed to take the view that South Wales wants its connection with Manchester and nothing more. I am all for that, but it is provided already by taking just a short run from Central Wales to the Hereford road, but there is no connection of a direct character between North and South Wales. I am inclined to accept the first part of the proposal, because I think it is desirable, but the second part, namely, the connection of Mid-Wales with North Wales is, I think, a proposal which the Minister of Transport ought to re-examine, because I am one of those


who are proud to claim in this House that the scenery not only in North Wales but in Central Wales is second to none in the country. It would make it easier for the people of North Wales to go to those parts of the country than is now the case. A road of that character would be an enormous contribution to that end, and it would, in addition, stimulate to some degree the revival of interest in the North country, and the flow of visitors in the summer months.
This is a form of assisting industry which none of us can afford to overlook or to undervalue, and I ask the Minister whether he will not consider once again the propriety of building, if you like, another fork to that road from Llandridnod Wells, north-westward to Caernarvon, or thereabouts. This is a point which people from South Wales would immediately propose against the Minister's proposition.

10.21 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: The first thing I would like to do is to have the very pleasant duty of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. I. Guest) on his very excellent maiden speech. The whole Committee will agree that he acquitted himself quite nobly in a battle of words with that distinguished K.C. of his own party who is sitting below him. I am l0th to intervene in what is, to all intents and purposes, a local Welsh controversy, particularly as I am unable to pronounce the names correctly. The controversy about this road became so acute that I went down to this place myself and inspected the road. I also received deputations representing both sides. I may admit now, as I think the Committee who have listened to this Debate must admit, that the arguments of each side are so equal that it is extremely difficult, even after seeing the place myself and receiving those deputations, to say which route this read should take. Briefly, to summarise, the direct route goes through Builth north to Llandridnod Wells, where it is comparatively wide, and then on to where it crosses, not a trunk road, but a main road going from east to west; then all the way up to Newtown, it goes through a sparsely populated area, is very narrow arid is extremely tortuous. I think it has something like five hairpin bends in

it. It is also some 200 feet higher, as was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies).
On the other hand, the alternative route is longer by some eight miles, and it forms two sides of a triangle of which the direct road forms the third side. At the apex of the triangle, the road to Aberystwyth goes off. It is undoubtedly true that more traffic uses the alternative road, the two sides, but chiefly because it is going to Aberystwyth, either from the south, Builth, or from the north, Newtown. It is a wider road and has the most wonderful views over the Wye Valley. I agree with what the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has just said as regards tourist traffic. It is no use telling the Committee that on this particular trunk road we are primarily considering industrial traffic. We are considering the tourist traffic through Wales, and, because of that, I asked the opinion, as we often do, of representative motoring organisations, namely, the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association, but the Committee will understand the difficulty when I say that both gave me alternative advice. The cost is about the same on both routes to make the roads reasonably safe and some 30 feet wide.
That is the case which has been put to us. A strong argument, as I think the Committee also thought, is that the direct route was the old trunk road, and it has been considered to be the trunk route for some 12 years. Whether the Minister of Transport of that time was right or wrong is not for us to question, but it is a fact that that was considered to be the trunk route, and for that reason certain work was put in hand which otherwise would not have been. Having heard the arguments, having viewed the road, and having received deputations on the subject, I feel that the arguments are so close that I am going, with the Minister's concurrence, to do what I believe you, Captain Bourne, sometimes do as Deputy-Chairman of Committee. If you get a Division in which both sides are equal, you decide that the Amendment is not carried; I believe that that is the custom. I think that on the whole we must ask the Committee to decide to keep the route as in the Bill, and not to adopt the alternative route. There is only one more point, and that is as to what was said by the hon. Member for


Caerphilly about the road to the north of Wales, but of course we cannot do anything in that regard, either under this Amendment or under the present Schedule to the Bill.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. C. DAVI ES: After what the Minister has said, I do not think it would be fair to ask the Committee to decide between Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire without knowing all the facts. I realise that this matter has given the Ministry great concern, and I was hoping that they would come down on my side, but I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech and on the success of the appeal which he has made. In the circumstances, I would ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 29, line 15, at the end, to insert:

"LEEDS—SCARBOUROUGH
Leeds—Tadcaster —York—Malton—Norton—Spital House—Seamer— Scarborough
A.64."

This Amendment proposes the addition of the road from Leeds to Scarborough. The Members who support it are drawn, not only from every part of the House, but from every part of the country, including Members representing London divisions who are equally clamorous with myself that this injustice should be remedied. I submit that the exclusion of this road discloses a very grave omission on the part of the Minister in erecting the framework of his Bill. In his very eloquent speech introducing the Bill, he said that the roads he was selecting were roads intended for through traffic, as against roads mainly serving the needs of the neighbourhood. This is a road dividing England. It runs from Preston to Scarborough. He went on to explain how he was taking over these roads because of the different authorities that had charge of them, how he wanted one uniform authority and how one road varied from a maximum of 40 to a minimum of 20 feet. This road varies from a maximum of 120 feet down to 30. You can imagine traffic being rushed along a broad highway of 120 feet,

traffic of the density of 8,000 to 9,000 vehicles a day. You suddenly come to a bottleneck in a little town, then to a narrow country lane of 30 feet, and then a wide section when it gets within seven miles of Scarborough. If that is not a trunk road I seriously suggest that there is no other trunk road in the Schedule. It has as great a claim as any other road that is included. On the Second Reading Members on all sides of the House stressed that it should be included.

I regret to say that the Parliamentary Secretary poured scorn on our suggestion and dismissed it with very few words. In fact, he only referred to myself and not to the eight other Members who had spoken. He showed sublime ignorance of the geography of the road. He was under the impression that I represented the East Riding and that most of the road was in that Riding. It is half in the North Riding and half in the East Riding. I represent a North Riding constituency, but my hon Friends who represent West and East Riding constituencies are all involved. The only answer he addressed to me was to point out that Yorkshire has not been badly treated. Yorkshire is not one county but three. There are three Ridings. To say that Yorkshire is well treated is like saying that East Anglia is well treated. There are 55 miles in the North Riding, 37 in the East Riding and 155 in the West Riding. But you cannot really go by mileage. You have also to consider the poverty or the richness of the area involved. It is a far greater injustice for a poor county to have to pay for trunk roads which other people go on than for a rich county. A penny rate in Surrey produces a contribution towards the maintenance per mile of county roads of —24 6s. 3d. The product of a penny rate in the North Riding is —1 19s. 3d. There is a very great injustice in the fact that a road which has cost us in the last few years —250,000 should not be taken over, when in Surrey, a far richer county, roads are being taken over. If roads are taken over in Surrey, why is not this road taken over?

The Parliamentary Secretary said that 247 miles of trunk roads were being taken over in Yorkshire, but he should pay more attention to the county roads in Yorkshire. In the three Ridings there


are 9,242 miles of county roads, and he proposes to take over only 247 miles. If you work that out it comes to some 2.6 per cent. Take our rival, the county of Lancashire. Out of 3,000 miles of county roads, he is taking over 188 miles, not 5.6 per cent. but 5.9 per cent. I will give him the case of Surrey, the percentage of which works out at 3.6. If he attaches any importance to the question of how many miles in each county, I would labour the point, because it was the only argument he put against my contention. The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head. He did also say this, and I will read it, so that the Committee can judge how valuable this argument was against our contention. 'He said that
The hon. Member mentioned that the Brighton road is included in the Schedule, but I would observe that the Brighton road carries a large volume of traffic all the year round and Scarborough does not carry so much in the winter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1936; col. 2053, Vol. 317.]
Neither does Brighton. If the hon. Member uses the Brighton road in the winter lie will find that there is far less traffic on it than in the summer. I was on the Scarborough road during the last 10 days, and there was a continuous stream of traffic along that road. It is true, I admit, that in summer there is more traffic; there is so much traffic that there is a queue through Malton two miles long. I have given the information to the House before, and I am going to repeat it, that the number of vehicles on this road is, according to the Minister's own census, 17,000 a day. That is the peak figure. At Malton there were 6,900 motor vehicles alone, and that was at a place where the vehicles going along the road were proceeding to Whitby instead of to Scarborough. I have the figures which bring in another 1,900 motor vehicles. The Great North Road is a trunk road, but we find the density of traffic on the Scarborough Road is double the amount on that road. I should have thought that the most important question about these trunk roads is where they are large, wide highways in one area, suddenly coming to a narrow bottleneck. The Minister cannot have a better example than the Scarborough road. At his behest it was made into a 120-feet double-carriageway, and then suddenly came down to a country lane 30 feet wide.

If this road is not taken over, what is going to happen? The Minister will say to me that the East Riding will bring out that 30 feet of country lane to 120 feet. But will they? I understand from the information I have received in Yorkshire that that is not the case. There is no justification for saying that. The East Riding have a perfectly common-sense point of view. They say that of the traffic which goes- along this road none stops in the East Riding, but goes rushing through to Scarborough. They are Leeds people pushing out of Leeds in order to get to Scarborough for some enjoyment. They say that this is not a concern of the East Riding and will not pay for this work. This bottleneck will be perpetuated unless the Minister takes over this trunk road.

There is a further argument which affects me deeply, as it concerns the town of Malton, where you sometimes have a queue two miles long. It takes one hour to get through Malton in the summer. Most planners would say "By-pass Malton," but the difficulty is that to bypass Malton you would have to go right through the East Riding, and the East Riding County Council will have nothing to do with that. If we cannot get this road taken over as a trunk road, it will mean a by-pass through a residential area on the north of Malton, and traffic dangers will be greatly increased, because you will have a 120-foot highway going through new council houses where there are many children, whereas if the road was taken over as a trunk road you would not have to go through an area where there are many buildings.

Earlier on the Minister said that he could not accept the Amendment, that he had consulted the council and must abide by the result. I am afraid that I must ask him to correct that statement. He has consulted the County Councils Association but not the county council. Speaking for my own council, the North Riding County Council, he has not consulted them on this matter. Not only that; they take extreme objection to the roads that have been put in the Schedule. They say that if there is any road in the North Riding which ought to be put in it is this road. They go further and say that if one road has to be left out it is not this road.

Rather than lose this road they would be willing to have the PenrithMiddlesbrough road not included. An equal mileage is affected in both cases—about 25 miles. I know the Middlesbrough-Penrith road, and I can ace the North Riding point of view.

If you ask lorry-drivers coming down from Scotland to say which way they will come they will say that it is not over the Penrith-Middlesbrough road, as it is most unsuitable for their vehicles. The only people who use this road are those driving light private cars for pleasure. I am authorised by the North Riding Committee to say that they are willing to make this exchange if the Minister is adamant and will not take over both roads. We do not want to give anything away, but that is a way out of the difficulty. I submit that the exclusion of this road demonstrates the ignorance of the Ministry of Transport about the highway system in the North of England, and that this Schedule is wrong. It was the Minister's duty not merely to go to the County Councils Association and then say that they have worked out this plan, but to have gone to each county council and asked them which they regarded from their knowledge of the roads as trunk roads. If he had done that, this road would have been included.

10.45 p.m.

Sir P. LATHAM: The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has made a very good case for the whole of the road Leeds-York-Malton-Scarborough, but I would like the House for a few minutes to consider the position of Scarborough in this matter. The greatest industry of Scarborough is that of a great holiday resort, and it is therefore essential to the people of Scarborough that the means of transport to Scarborough should be good. The people of Scarborough are willing to pay a very high road rate if they can get a good road from the Midlands to Scarborough. At the present time, they get an extremely bad road for many miles. It is not the fault of the North Riding County Council in which Scarborough is situated, because the road is a main road running from York to Scarborough. It goes roughly to Malton, which is half way, then there is the boundary of the North Riding County Council, and for the next 20 miles, it goes about 17 miles or so

within the precincts of East Riding County Council. It is quite unreasonable for the East Riding County Council to pay for an immense road for people going from York to Scarborough. They get no benefit from this expenditure, and it is unreasonable to ask that authority to spend a large sum of money on that particular road.
The Minister has said that he realises that:
With modern developmenets in the means of conveyance and the progressive growth in the volume and range of traffic it has not been within the capacity of all highway authorities to make these roads meet the demands ever more insistently placed upon them. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1936; col. 1950; Vol. 317.]
In that case, he realises that this is one of the roads which proves that point. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that the East Riding County Council might be persuaded
to bring the Scarborough Road up to a reasonable standard of width and safety."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1936; col. 2054, Vol. 317.]
The Parliamentary Secretary said that, so that I will not bore the House with long details of the corners, twists, turns, bridges and so on in that particular road. Moreover, the Minister said that those bad roads had arisen from various reasons, and first he said it was because some of the authorities are poor. The East Riding is a poor authority, and when I suggested last week that this road was a suitable road to be taken over, I was told:
We did not find it possible to include the Eastbourne road, the Hastings road, the Southend road, the Blackpool road and others."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1936; col. 2053, Vol. 317.]
The Parliamentary Secretary took no notice whatsoever of the fact that all the roads he mentioned are in the richest counties in England. Every one of those roads, according to the figures given by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, shows at least a mile and I think the Blackpool figure is fourth on the list. The figure in the case of the East Riding, which is even lower than that of North Riding, is £1 5s. The East Riding comes fortieth in the list. Nothing was mentioned by the Parliamentry Secretary about the difference that was made by those roads being in very rich counties, whereas the road to Scarborough goes


through a poor county. I may add that I happen to live on the Eastbourne road tend that neither in the height of summer nor at any other time is the traffic in any way comparable as far as difficult driving and the impossible conditions are concerned. I believe that if the Minister would go down the road to Scarborough on a Sunday he would feel as we do about the conditions there.
The next point the Minister made was that the multiplicity of authorities controlling contiguous strips of what, after all, may be the same line of communication is itself an obstacle in the way of uniformity. I quite agree; that is the obstacle, and we have it on the Scarborough road. This road running through the North Riding to one place, then to another place in the North Riding, and then through the East Riding, is a case which ought to suit the Minister. Further, I asked whether there was a sporting hope of anything happening in the future. After all, the people of Scarborough do not really care very much whether the North Riding, the East Riding, the nation or anybody else does it as long as they. get a good road, and there does not seem to be any chance at present of getting a good road from anybody. I cannot see, therefore, why the Minister could not step in and put pressure on the local authority or else himself take over the road. The Minister said:
Recognised arrangements have been evolved—and my Ministry was appointed to facilitate them—whereby in return for our assistance towards expenditure some pressure can be exerted in favour of better canons of construction and upkeep."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1936; col. 1949, Vol. 317.]
The Parliamentary Secretary said:
Now that the Selby Road is a trunk road and is taken off their shoulders, I would press my hon. Friends to see whether they cannot do their part, as the North Riling are doing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1936; col. 2053, Vol. 317.]
We have been pressing for years. Surely this is the very moment when we should come to the Minister and say, "You are talking about pressure; what pressure are you going to put on? "It should not be local members for distant areas who should try to get county councils to do swops. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the East Riding has been relieved of the expense of the Selby Road, that is a bargain for him to drive

—not us. We have nothing to bargain with; he has. He should say, "If we take the Selby Road will you give us a guarantee to do that other road?" The House should see that it is obviously a through road and a road where there is great danger to many people travelling along it. This is a good case and I hope the Minister will be charming and not adamant, as he pretends to be up to the moment.

10.53 p.m.

Major BRAITHWAITE: As representing the East Riding of Yorkshire I think it is about time I had something to say. We have been accused by my hon. Friend the Member for Malton (Mr. Turton) of being a poor authority, a poor agricultural community. We have been accused by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir P. Latham) of being reactionary in the case of this road. I should like to say exactly what the situation is. In my constituency 25 miles of this road join on to Malton and Scarborough. On this road is carried the traffic of 5,000,000 people who live in the West Riding. There is a good deal of through traffic which goes right away up to the east coast into Scotland. Twenty-five miles of this road, the bulk of it, goes through my constituency, a division which has no interest in it except that these motorists go through my villages at an excessive speed and do a great deal of damage.
One-sixth of the rates of the East Riding are paid by the town of Bridlington, which is in direct competition with the town of Scarborough. We are supposed to pay for the cost of this road to run visitors to a competing seaside resort. There is not much logic in that. At the same time we feel the contribution which we have continually had to put up to maintain this road, which is one of the hardest used roads in the country. I want to ask the Minister this question: Who has paid for these roads? The motorists have paid for them and the motorists should have them where they want them. The motorists require this road. They are the revenue-producers for his Ministry, and if he is careful and considerate to them, he will see that they have the roads provided where they can properly use them.
The people of the West Riding do not want to be dashing up and down the


Great North Road all the time. That is not their idea. They have their motorcars for pleasure and want to get to places of beauty. We have heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that Wales had some claims to have a main trunk road because it was passing through beauty spots but I can make a similar claim for East Yorkshire. I want to make this other point. In the future, with aerial development coming as it is, East Yorkshire is going to be to England what Southampton is now. The fact that we have Flam-borough Head there makes it all the more important that we should have a proper road to the great distinguishing mark of our east coast. From a tactical point of view, from a military point of view and from a defence point of view there is every reason to expect consideration of this road. There is a very great claim made that if a road has a main trunk road within 15 miles of it, there is no need for another trunk road to be made. The nearest trunk road to this road which carries all this traffic is 30 miles away, and I can assure the Minister that we in East Yorkshire want to be as helpful as we can.
We are glad to see that he has had the courage to introduce a Bill of this sort, but we also ask him to give us the full facilities to which on figures it cannot be denied we are entitled. For myself I put this road as a, road which the House of Commons would wish to see made into a main road and maintained at the national expense, because of its geographical position. I hope the Minister will not use that attitude which he used on the earlier part of the Amend-merit, but that he will give proper consideration to this proposal, because we have in Yorkshire one of the largest industrial areas in the whole of our country, and they with their 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 population do expect the same consideration as is given to southern roads. Down here, they are having a very great deal more of the gross money from the motorists than we are getting in the north of England. My hon. Friends from other parts of Yorkshire know the importance of this road and will, I hope, take steps in this Debate to see that full representation is given to the claims of this road.

10.58 p.m.

Major MILNER: I am not going to enter into the differences of the East and North Ridings, because I am one who represents that portion of Leeds through which a great portion of the traffic passes, and I think the only solution is for the Government to take over the whole road. We in the East Riding take equal pleasure in trips to Scarborough and trips to Bridlington, and we are happy to support the hon. Member who has spoken in support of the Amendment. But I want to know on what principle the Ministry are deciding these matters? Are they deciding as to which road shall be made a trunk road on the question of the amount of traffic? If so, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has said, that there is no road in the north of England that has a greater claim to be treated as a trunk road than the road from Leeds to Scarborough. On the other hand, if the matter is to be treated as one of strategic importance we ought to remember that Scarborough was bombarded in the last war and goodness knews what will happen to it in the next war. I am afraid that the point which is appealing to the Ministry is the taking-over of easy roads in the county between the large towns. I should like to see them take over all the roads running from coast to coast, even those which pass through county boroughs. As it is there are going to be a number of anomalies and difficulties. I can imagine that in Leeds for example there will be cases in which a few hundred yards will be taken over by the Ministry and another few hundred yards by the borough council—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that point has already been dealt with by the Committee.

Major MILNER: I agree. I would only ask on what principle are the Government acting? I submit that a case has been made out, which the Minister, with all his adroitness will find difficulty in meeting. I hope that he will take the matter back and consider the inclusion of this road on which it is a positive purgatory to drive at week-ends and even at other times.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This particular road seems to dominate all the discussions on this Bill. Even on Second


Reading an Amendment appeared on the Paper inviting the House to reject the Bill, unless the Leeds to Scarborough road was included. Certainly a large measure of support has been enlisted in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). We are dealing with a part of the country which is particularly well served by trunk roads.

Major MILNER: No.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I agree that no hon. Member is going to admit that his constituency is doing well, but I shall give the Committee the mileage. The loads from Leeds to Hull, the connection between Middlesbrough and the Great North Road at Darlington and the road from Middlesbrough to Hull are each, approximately, 35 miles from Scarborough. In the West Riding there are 160 miles of trunk roads; in the North Riding, 56 miles, and in the East Riding 31 miles, an average of 80 miles for each Riding compared with the average of approximately 50 miles for each of the other 83 counties of Great Britain. Therefore we are dealing with a part of the country which does not come off extremely badly, let us say, in regard to trunk roads.

Sir P. LATHAM: I think the figures which the Minister has given as to the distance from Scarborough to Middlesbrough are extremely misleading. The distance is nearer double that.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The figures which I give to the Committee, I endeavour to make accurate and the mileages I have given I think are accurate.

Sir P. LATHAM: I assure the right hon. Gentleman they are not. I live there and I know.

Mr. HORE-B ELISHA: If my hon. Friend has measured all the mileages of trunk roads and has some correction to make in my speech, I am sure I shall be happy to consider it, and if I have misled the Committee it has been inadvertently. I do not think, however, that the point is of real importance to my argument, and we do not want to quibble over every detail of the mileage. What is the case for the inclusion of this road? My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir P. Latham), who is at the critical point,

the place to which the proposed road would lead, says that Scarborough is an important seaside resort. I do not think that will be disputed, but there happen to be a large number of important seaside resorts.

Sir P. LATHAM: In the North of England.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend will not allow his opponents to have anything. Blackpool is in the North of England, and Blackpool has just as much traffic as Scarborough and has made no request to come in. We will agree that Scarborough is an important seaside resort, but we must also agree that there are other important seaside resorts which are not included in the Bill, and the fact that a town is an important seaside resort is not a justification for its inclusion in the Bill. I have stated the principles of the Bill, which are to hand over to the Minister of Transport as the highway authority the main through roads of the United Kingdom connecting the important industrial centres. Scarborough does not happen to be one of them. It is an attractive seaside resort, and I should be the last to detract from its merits, having stayed there myself, but nobody could say that it is one of the focal points of the country. That, I think, demolishes the first argument produced by my hon. Friend. I have just had the figures that my hon. Friend questioned checked, and I find that from Hull to Scarborough is 25 miles. I said 35, so I understated the case. From Scarborough to Middlesbrough is 35 miles, so I stated it accurately there.
The next argument produced by my hon. Friend was that the East Riding is a poor county. Trunk roads are not included in this Bill because counties are rich or poor, but because they are trunk roads connecting important centres, and the richness or poverty of a county has nothing whatever to do with the case. Does the road on its merits justify inclusion or does it not? My hon. Friend concludes with a third argument, which is an argument of despair, and he says, "Well, I do not mind whether the East Riding pays for it, or the West Riding, or the State, as long as somebody pays for it." That is not a valid test to apply to this Bill, because anybody could come here and say, "We cannot afford to maintain this


road, so we propose to neglect it, and perhaps you will thereby be persuaded to take it over as one of the important through roads of the country." That is not an argument to which for one moment we can assent.
Then I am asked, "Even if the road has not the merits which we claim for it and our arguments are not true arguments, will you do a deal? Will you swap "—as the phrase was, in inverted commas—" this road for the Penrith-Middlesbrough road? "Part of the road that I am asked to abandon in favour of the Scarborough-Leeds road happens to be in Westmorland, and the Westmorland County Council are not to be consulted. An important road going right across England is to be taken out in order that Scarborough can come in, and that affects other counties beside the Ridings of Yorkshire and is a transaction which, although I would be prepared to examine it, I cannot be expected to agree to by any reasonable person. Therefore, I am at a loss to understand on what grounds I can be expected to agree to the inclusion of this road. I am extremely sorry that the East Riding has not continued the work of the other Ridings. One Riding has improved the road and the other Riding has left it in a more primitive condition. I am very sorry about that, and I have offered on behalf of the Government a very substantial grant to the East Riding to improve it. With that grant they could not improve it because they had on their hands also the Selby by-pass scheme. We have now relieved them of the trunk road on which Selby is, and that being the case they will have more resources released.
Whether this road ought to be in or not, no county has cause of complaint. They are all being relieved of something, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton will on reflection appreciate that he does little service to the county which, after all, has received something, to come down to the Committee and complain in almost every sentence of the great ignorance of everybody in the Ministry of Transport and of everybody who disagrees with him. He made a very severe attack upon my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who does happen to know this road and who

has studied the conditions. He actually made it a complaint that my hon. Friend, in answering his speech, made no reference to anybody else who had spoken in the Debate on this road. For the purpose of greater accuracy I have provided myself with a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I find that my hon. Friend, with his usual courtesy, went out of his way to congratulate all the supporters of this road upon the eloquence with which they had argued their case. It is indeed indisputable that great eloquence has been displayed in this case. This is a short road, but it has given rise to some long and interesting speeches.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: We are in some difficulty to know how to vote on this matter. It was said some time ago that the Mother of Parliaments in becoming the mother of protection was becoming the mother of log-rolling. The more we see of this Bill the more we are inclined to think that it may lead to something of the same kind, because of all the talk we hear about swopping roads and doing a deal with the Minister in order to get more money out of the State. Our difficulty is to see any principle in this Bill at all. There is nothing in it to define what a trunk road is. The purpose of the Bill is very largely to relieve the financial burdens of the counties outside London, and it cannot be grumbled at, when the Government seek to help their friends who are running the county councils, if their own political supporters try to help themselves to more money. The argument of the hon. Members for Yorkshire is that these roads are very expensive to maintain because they carry a lot of traffic. The purpose of the Bill is to relieve the county councils, and no county councils more than the Tory councils, and they are out to get more money from the State.
We do not seem to be having this Debate on the matter of principle at all. The Minister has capitulated to the argument of the hon. Members for Yorkshire by saying that the East or North Riding of Yorkshire ought not to grumble at him because he is relieving them of some expense. Directly you begin to argue as if the purpose of the Bill is to relieve county councils you get away from the


question of what a trunk road is. I am in a difficulty to know what the difference is between the London-Brighton road and the Leeds-Scarborough road. It is arguable what a trunk road is. The London-Southampton, London-Dover and London-Portsmouth roads are certainly trunk roads because they lead to important termini and go through important towns. But it cannot be argued that the London-Brighton road is a trunk road in that sense. The great bulk of the traffic is not trunk road traffic but sheer pleasure traffic. In the main people do not come from Scotland to get to Brighton. The Minister has put in the London-Brighton road, and I cannot see any difference in principle between that and the Leeds-Scarborough road, except that the amount of traffic on the London-Brighton road is probably the greater, but in both cases they are roads from a great urban district to a seaside resort.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: Will the right h on. Gentleman tell us the populations respectively of Brighton and Scarborough?

Mr. MORRISON: That really is irrelevant. Brighton is the larger and relatively more important seaside resort --that is a fact—but then we have to admit the other fact that, relatively to the population of Yorkshire and the

population that uses Scarborough as a seaside resort, Scarborough is just as important to that area as Brighton to London. The Minister seems to me to have fallen into it and to have lost whatever principle there was in his Bill. I do not know whether the principle was to help certain county councils, or to help in military preparations, or to provide a cry for the winning of the next election, or what it was, though when I notice how many Tory Members are returned from that district I begin to think that the roads cannot be decent enough for the voters to get to the poll, otherwise those Members would not be here. Frankly, I say it is difficult to see the principle on which we are working; one sees a difficulty in deciding what one ought to do. We should all, I suppose, do as we like according to our municipal point of view, or the point of view of our constituencies, but as I am in doubt about it and other hon. Members are in doubt, and my hon. Friends from the county of Yorkshire tell me that this Amendment is right, I personally propose to vote for it, and I think that on balance that is what we ought to do.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 157.

Division No. 24.
AYES.
[11.18 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Harris, Sir P. A.
Price, M. P.


Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Adams, D. M. (Potar, S.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Qulbell, D. J. K.


Adamson, W. M.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hollins, A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Amnon, C. G.
Jagger, J
Ridley, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Riley, B.


Barrens, A. J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Rawson, G.


Benson, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Brooke, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dagger, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobble, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker. J. J


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Turton, R. H.


Ede J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mender, G. le M.
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Fool, D. M
Messer, F.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Mller, Major J.
White, H. Graham


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Whiteley, W.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muff, G
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Oliver, G. H.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pallng, W
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grffith, F. Kingsley (M' ddl' sbro, W.)
Pthick-Lawrence, F.W.
Sir Paul Latham and Major


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.
Braithwaite.




NOES


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Ganzonl, Sir J.
Patrick, C. M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Gluckstein, L. H.
Penny, Sir G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Goldle, N. B.
Perkins. W. R. D.


Apsley, Lord
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Petherick, M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Plugge, L. F.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin Webb, Col, J.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'il, N.W.)
Procter, Major H. A.


Balniel, Lord
Guy, J. C. M.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Harbord, A.
Rankin, R.


Blair, Sir R.
Haslam, H. C.(Horncastie)
Rathbone, J. FL (Bodmin)


Blindell, Sir J.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Remer, J. R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hepworth, J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Herbert. Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Bull, B. B.
Holmes, J. S.
Rowlands, G.


Butler, R. A.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hopkinson, A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cary, R. A.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salt, E. W.


Channon, H.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Keeling, E. H.
Scott, Lord William


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Selley, H. R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril S. (Fulham, West)
Kimball, L.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)
Lees-Jones, J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Sir R.W. (Aberdeen)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Liddall, W. S.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Craven Eills, W.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Crooke, J. S.
Lloyd, G. W.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cross, R. H.
McKie, J. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crossley, A. C.
Making, Brig.-Gen. E.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Thomas. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


De Chair, S. S.
Markham, S. F.
Wakefield, W. W.


Dodd, J. S.
Maxwell, S. A.
Wardlaw-Mllne, Sir J. S.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Duggan, H. J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Elliston, G. S.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel G.


Elmley, Viscount
Morgan, R. H.
Wise, A. R.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Womersiey, Sir W. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wragg, H.


Elides, Sir H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'st'r)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Fleming, E. L.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Munro, P.



Fraser, Capt. Sir L.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Fremantle, Sir F. E,
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Furness, S. N.
Orr-Ewing, L L.
Ward and Mr. James Stuart.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."
We have had a very long discussion on this Bill, and the Minister cannot complain that there has been obstruction from any part of the Committee. Indeed, the Bill has gone through with very general consent and agreement. We observed, however, the nature of the discussion on the last Amendment, in which a demand was made for the inclusion of a particular road, and it would seem that we are likely to be kept here for possibly another hour or two, which would be very inconvenient for Members on this side, though perhaps less so for hon. Members

opposite. In view of the fact that the Minister and the Government have been facilitated to the extent that they have been to-day, I trust that they will see their way to accept this Motion.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman was going to move this Motion—

Mr. JOHNSTON: We gave notice.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can only say that I did not know.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): In view of the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I must say that


I had no notice of this Motion until two minutes ago as I came out of the Lobby.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We gave notice a few moments ago.

Captain MARGESSON: The Government have had no notice. I only rise to make it perfectly clear that the Government have had no warning whatever that this Motion would be moved.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We sent notice through the usual channels—I am sorry I cannot say to whom it was sent—that we proposed to move to report Progress, after we saw how long the discussion on the last Amendment had extended. I think it is a very small point, and I am sure the Patronage Secretary cannot complain that any obstruction has taken place. In view of the possibility of further discussions on the lines of that can the last Amendment, I trust that the Government will agree to accept the Motion to report Progress.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is not a point of major importance. I merely state as a fact that we did not know that the right hon. Gentleman was going to move it, though I do not say that he was intentionally keeping us in ignorance of it. I agree with him that there has been nothing in the nature of obstruction; in fact, on all sides of the Committee there has been a desire to improve the Bill as far as possible. It has gone with the utmost smoothness, and there has been hardly a note of acerbity at all. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my appealing to him. We are at the very last stage of the Bill. There is only one more Amendment to include another road and the other Amendments are purely drafting. It seems to me that if in a quarter of an hour we could finish the Committee stage and come fresh to the Report stage on Thursday, it would be for the convenience of the House. If the next Amendment takes only a few minutes we can dispose of the Bill to-night. In the circumstances, I should be disposed to resist the Motion; hope with the consent of the Committee.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: How long is it proposed to ask us to sit in considering the remaining Government business?

Captain MARGESSON: If the Committee agrees to finish the Committee stage of the Bill, the Government will not ask the House to take any further business.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. LIDDALL: I beg to move, in page 30, line 26, at the end, to insert:

"GRIMSBY—LEICESTER
East Coast to West Grimsby —Caenby Corner—Lincoln—Newark—Leicester
A.46."

This road is not only of vital importance to my own county, the second largest county in England, but running, as it does, through Lincoln, Leicester, Coventry down to Bath, Exeter and Bristol, it is a direct connection between East and West. The omission of such an important road has caused widespread alarm, especially among members of the Grimsby Development Board, comprising members of the Grimsby Town Council and many leading citizens in North Lincolnshire.

11.35 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) any great hope of our accepting the Amendment. Although we admit that this road has a fair volume of traffic, on balance, and after consultation with the county council, it was decided that other roads should be put in and that this road should not be accepted. There is a trunk road from Birmingham through Derbyshire, Sheffield, Doncaster and Grimsby, and another trunk road through Lincolnshire, Peterborough and Grimsby. I do not think that Grimsby can be affected as it has these two trunk roads going to it. Taking the average traffic, there are some 2,000 vehicles. Although I could give other arguments for leaving out this road, I hope that the Committee will not press to have it put into the Schedule.

Mr. LIDDALL: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE. — (Modification, in relation to Trunk Roads, of certain enactments relating to functions of Highway Authorities.)

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 34, line 47, at the end, to insert:
Section 6.—In Sub-section (2) for the words 'upon the application of a highway authority,' there shall be substituted the words 'by the Minister on his own initiative.'
This is a Government drafting Amendment to make more clear the reference in Section 6, Sub-section (2) of the Bridges Act, 1929.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Transitional provisions.)

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 43, line 17, after "in," to insert "Part I of."
This Amendment, again, is put down for the sake of clarity.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 43, line 33, leave out "the former highway authority for," and insert "in relation to."

In line 35, after "thirty-seven," insert "any local authority."

In page 44, line 16, after the first "road," insert:
or by a local authority for the purposes of functions in relation to the road under any of the enactments mentioned in Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act.

In line 20, leave out "former highway."

In line 24, leave out "former highway."

In line 44, after "authority," insert "or any such local authority as aforesaid."

In page 45, line 19, leave out "a former highway," and insert "any."

In line 20, leave out "a former highway," and insert "any."

In line 21, leave out "a former highway," and insert "any."

In line 27, leave out "former highway."

In line 27, after "authority," insert "from whom the property or liabilities was or were transferred."

In line 34, after "authority," insert "and to any local authority."

In line 36, at the end, add:
or, so far as relates to any functions under enactments mentioned in Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act and to property and liabilities vested in or incurred by the Minister for the purposes of those functions, to the local authority which is to exercise those functions in relation to the road."—[Captain Hudson.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [25th November] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills be now considered.—[Sir G. Penny.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Sir G. Penny.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Committee nominated of,—Mr. Allan Chapman, Mr. Clement Davies, Mr. Ernest Evans, Major Milner, Mr. Ross Taylor, and Sir R. W. Smith.—[Sir G. Penny.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the. Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a Quarter before Twelve o'Clock.